I Boundary conditions for a stream function in a hydrodynamics problem

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on determining the boundary conditions for the stream function in a hydrodynamics problem involving a square bath with a hole in the floor. The stream function is derived from the Laplace equation, and while the walls of the bath have constant values, the conditions at the hole and the top boundary are more complex. The concept of vena contracta is introduced, suggesting that the flow converges and narrows after passing through the hole. The user attempts to solve for the vertical component of velocity at the boundaries but questions the validity of assuming it is constant. Overall, the challenge lies in accurately defining the boundary conditions to derive the streamline equation effectively.
GilSE
Messages
8
Reaction score
3
TL;DR Summary
The water is pouring out from the bath with a hole, I want to find streamlines. Needed boundary conditions for Laplace equation.
The situation is like this: we have a bath of a square cross-section. The cross-section is modeled by an area ##\{x, y: 0\leq x\leq 1, 0\leq y\leq 1\}## in 2d Cartesian coordinates (the gravity fied direction is opposite to the y-axis). There is a hole in the floor of the bath, it starts at ##x=a## and ends at ##x=1-a##. The bath is filled with ideal incompressible liquid which is pouring out from the hole. Assuming the liquid is pouring out slowly, I think, we can suppose the flow is steady when the considered time interval is small enough. Also, I assume the flow is vortexless because why not. I'd like to find the streamline equation for this flow.

In this case, the stream function can be found from Laplace equation ##\Delta\psi (x,y)=0##.
The question is the boundary conditions for the equation. Of course, on the walls of the bath they should be ##\psi(x,y)=const##, but for the ##y=1## boundary and for the hole it's more complicated question for me.

My reasoning:
##\psi(x_0,y_0)## could be found by integrating partial derivative ##\frac {\partial \psi (x,y_0)}{\partial x}## with respect to ##x## from ##0## to ##x_0##, if set ##\psi(0,y)=0##. As the derivative ##\frac {\partial \psi}{\partial x} = -v_y##, all we need to obtain values of ##\psi## at these boundaries it is the vertical component of velocity ##v_y## at them. But only I have no idea how to figure out ##v_y(x,0)## and ##v_y(x,1)##. I thought the Bernoulli theorem could be the key, but it deals with the magnitudes of velocities, not with components.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
GilSE said:
Also, I assume the flow is vortexless because why not.
The elimination of Coriolis force is a very wise move.
You may need to consider the hole, as having a vena contracta, below the cut edge.

Don't put a round hole in a square bath. It messes with your coordinates.

If the bottom of the bath, in plan, is square, with vertical walls, then use a symmetrical square hole to partly simplify the maths.

Ideally, for math simplicity, the bottom of the bath would be round, the hole could then also be round, and in the centre of a radial model.
 
Baluncore said:
Don't put a round hole in a square bath. It messes with your coordinates.
Of course! The bath is infinite in the direction normal to the Oxy plane, and the hole is an infinitely elongated rectangle. I think now it fits to my coordinates perfectly. (I am not in the mood to mess with solving an equation in cylindrical coordinates, let it be simple Cartesian)
 
Baluncore said:
You may need to consider the hole, as having a vena contracta, below the cut edge.
What I've (I hope) understood about "vena contracta" is that there is a level slightly below the hole where ##v_x## component is equal to 0. Maybe it can be helpful for my problem, but I didn't figure out how exactly, for now.
 
Baluncore said:
Fluid, converging towards the hole, continues to converge after passing through the hole. That results in a flow after the hole, that is narrower than the actual hole.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vena_contracta
Actually, I did an attempt to solve the equation assuming ##v_y## is constant at ##y=0## and at the hole. The picture was like this:
IMG_20250202_121046.jpg

Configuration of the streamlines at the hole looks like they really will form the picture from the Wikipedia page if would be extrapolated, but I don't think that my assumption about constant ##v_y## is physically justified.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Let there be a person in a not yet optimally designed sled at h meters in height. Let this sled free fall but user can steer by tilting their body weight in the sled or by optimal sled shape design point it in some horizontal direction where it is wanted to go - in any horizontal direction but once picked fixed. How to calculate horizontal distance d achievable as function of height h. Thus what is f(h) = d. Put another way, imagine a helicopter rises to a height h, but then shuts off all...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Back
Top