Dealing with conflicting no-slip Navier-Stokes boundary value constraints?

AI Thread Summary
The no-slip boundary condition in Navier-Stokes equations requires fluid velocity to match that of moving surfaces, leading to inconsistencies when interfaces with different velocities interact. For instance, a stir stick in a coffee cup creates a conflict between the required fluid velocity at the stick's surface and the fixed bottom of the cup. This raises questions about modifying the no-slip condition to resolve such inconsistencies, including the potential need to exclude a neighborhood around the contact point from boundary evaluations. The issue of wetting and slip remains unresolved, as the no-slip condition is often violated in practical scenarios, such as liquid droplets moving on solid surfaces. Various models have been proposed to address this, including those by Dussan and Huh and Mason, while Shikhmurzaev's recent work offers additional insights but remains contentious.
Peeter
Messages
303
Reaction score
3
The no-slip boundary value constraint for Navier-Stokes solutions was explained in my fluid dynamics class as a requirement to match velocities at the interfaces.

So, for example, in a shearing flow where there is a moving surface, the fluid velocity at the fluid/surface interface has to match the velocity of the moving surface.

Similarily, in a channel flow problem, where the boundaries of the channel are not moving, we set the fluid velocities equal to zero at the fluid/surface interfaces.

Observe that this leads to an inconsistency when we have an interface moving on top of a fixed interface. For example, when we have something that is stirring the fluid (like a stir stick in a coffee cup that's scraping along the bottom of the cup). On the surface of the stir stick the "no-slip" condition requires the velocity of the fluid to match the stir stick speed, but at the bottom of the cup we require the velocity to be zero. In an example like this, we can't have both zero and non-zero velocities where the stir-stick touches the cup-bottom.

How is the no-slip condition modified to deal with this inconsistency? Do you have to delete a neighbourhood of the point of contact from the locations where the boundary value conditions are evaluated, and if so, how would the size of that neighbourhood be determined?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Resolving the problem of wetting and slip is an ongoing process- it is an open problem to date. It was introduced to maintain a finite stress tensor across an interface, but the no-slip condition is routinely violated- liquid droplets can move across a solid surface, for example- ever drive in the rain?

Dussan, AFAIK, had one of the first proposals by simply allowing slip (she credits Navier as introducing it) in J. Fluid Mech 209 191-226 (1989). Huh and Mason (J. Fluid Mech 81 401 1977) present another slip model. More recently, Shikhmurzaev's book "Capillary Flows with Forming Interfaces" is interesting, but I'm not sure what to think of his ideas.
 
Thread 'Gauss' law seems to imply instantaneous electric field'
Imagine a charged sphere at the origin connected through an open switch to a vertical grounded wire. We wish to find an expression for the horizontal component of the electric field at a distance ##\mathbf{r}## from the sphere as it discharges. By using the Lorenz gauge condition: $$\nabla \cdot \mathbf{A} + \frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial t}=0\tag{1}$$ we find the following retarded solutions to the Maxwell equations If we assume that...
Maxwell’s equations imply the following wave equation for the electric field $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}}{\partial t^2} = \frac{1}{\varepsilon_0}\nabla\rho+\mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf J}{\partial t}.\tag{1}$$ I wonder if eqn.##(1)## can be split into the following transverse part $$\nabla^2\mathbf{E}_T-\frac{1}{c^2}\frac{\partial^2\mathbf{E}_T}{\partial t^2} = \mu_0\frac{\partial\mathbf{J}_T}{\partial t}\tag{2}$$ and longitudinal part...
Back
Top