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

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the no-slip boundary value constraint in Navier-Stokes solutions, particularly in scenarios involving moving surfaces and fixed interfaces. It highlights the inconsistency that arises when a moving object, such as a stir stick, interacts with a stationary fluid interface, leading to conflicting velocity requirements. The conversation references foundational works, including Dussan's proposal for allowing slip and Huh and Mason's slip model, as well as Shikhmurzaev's book "Capillary Flows with Forming Interfaces." The ongoing challenge of modifying the no-slip condition to resolve these inconsistencies remains an open problem in fluid dynamics.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Navier-Stokes equations
  • Familiarity with boundary value problems in fluid dynamics
  • Knowledge of fluid mechanics concepts such as shear flow and interface behavior
  • Awareness of historical research on slip conditions in fluid dynamics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of Dussan's slip model in practical applications
  • Study Huh and Mason's findings on slip conditions in fluid mechanics
  • Examine Shikhmurzaev's theories in "Capillary Flows with Forming Interfaces"
  • Explore current methodologies for addressing no-slip condition violations in fluid dynamics
USEFUL FOR

Fluid dynamics researchers, mechanical engineers, and anyone involved in computational fluid dynamics or studying boundary value problems in fluid mechanics will benefit from this discussion.

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.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K