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

In summary, the no-slip boundary value constraint in Navier-Stokes solutions requires the fluid velocity at the fluid/surface interface to match the velocity of the moving surface. However, this leads to an inconsistency when there is an interface moving on top of a fixed interface. To address this issue, there have been proposals for slip models, but the problem of wetting and slip remains an ongoing process and an open problem. Some proposed solutions include allowing slip at the interface or modifying the no-slip condition to exclude a neighborhood of the point of contact from boundary value evaluations. There have been various proposals for slip models, but their effectiveness and applicability are still being studied.
  • #1
Peeter
305
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
  • #2
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.
 

1. What are no-slip Navier-Stokes boundary value constraints?

No-slip Navier-Stokes boundary value constraints refer to the conditions at the boundaries of a fluid flow system where the velocity of the fluid is assumed to be zero. This means that the fluid particles at the boundary do not move parallel to the boundary, resulting in zero velocity at the boundary.

2. Why is dealing with conflicting no-slip Navier-Stokes boundary value constraints important?

Dealing with conflicting no-slip Navier-Stokes boundary value constraints is important because these constraints are essential for accurately modeling fluid flow in various engineering and scientific applications. Any conflicts or inconsistencies in these constraints can lead to inaccurate predictions and unreliable results.

3. How do conflicting no-slip Navier-Stokes boundary value constraints arise?

Conflicting no-slip Navier-Stokes boundary value constraints can arise due to various factors such as simplifications made in the mathematical model, errors in measurements, or limitations in the numerical methods used to solve the equations. These conflicts can also occur when dealing with complex flow systems or non-Newtonian fluids.

4. What are some techniques for dealing with conflicting no-slip Navier-Stokes boundary value constraints?

One technique for dealing with conflicting no-slip Navier-Stokes boundary value constraints is to carefully analyze the assumptions and simplifications made in the mathematical model and make appropriate adjustments. Another approach is to use more advanced numerical methods that can handle complex boundary conditions and non-Newtonian fluids. Collaborating with experts in the field and conducting experimental validation can also help resolve any conflicts.

5. How can scientists ensure the accuracy of their results when dealing with conflicting no-slip Navier-Stokes boundary value constraints?

To ensure the accuracy of results when dealing with conflicting no-slip Navier-Stokes boundary value constraints, scientists can use multiple numerical methods and compare the results, conduct sensitivity analyses to assess the impact of different boundary conditions, and validate their findings with experimental data. It is also essential to carefully document and report any assumptions or simplifications made in the model to ensure transparency.

Similar threads

Replies
18
Views
1K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
1
Views
874
  • Classical Physics
Replies
14
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Other Physics Topics
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Introductory Physics Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Engineering and Comp Sci Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
1K
Back
Top