(Eulerian) Velocity of an elementary vector

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Eulerian rate of deformation tensor and the expression for the material time derivative of vector fields. Participants explore the relationship between the Eulerian description and the material derivative, questioning the notation and physical interpretations involved.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses uncertainty about the expression for the Eulerian rate of deformation tensor, specifically questioning the validity of the equation relating the time derivative of a position vector to gradient velocity terms.
  • Another participant provides a derivation of the material time derivative of a vector field, highlighting the contributions from both the time dependence of the vector field and the movement of fluid elements.
  • A different participant presents their understanding of the material derivative, emphasizing the notation and questioning its peculiarities in the Eulerian framework.
  • One participant clarifies that their previous notation was a matter of semantics, yet points out the absence of a velocity gradient in the material derivative of the differential position vector.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit differing views on the notation and interpretations of the material time derivative and its relation to the Eulerian description. No consensus is reached regarding the validity of the expressions discussed.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential ambiguities in notation and the implications of different mathematical frameworks, such as nabla-calculus and component-Ricci calculus, which may affect the interpretation of the discussed expressions.

trabo
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Hello everyone,

In order to define the eulerian rate deformation tensor, one should first express [itex]\dfrac{d}{dt}(\underline{dx})[/itex] in gradient velocity terms (denoted [itex]\underline{\nabla v}[/itex] with [itex]v[/itex] equal to the partial time derivative of the geometrical mapping that relates the inital configuration to the current one).
In an article, we claim that
[itex]\dfrac{d}{dt}(\underline{dx})=v(\underline{x}+\underline{dx},t)-v(\underline{x},t)[/itex] (1)​
and thus
[itex]\dfrac{d}{dt}(\underline{dx})[/itex][itex]=\underline{\nabla v} . \underline{dx}[/itex]​
I'm not sure about (1). It says actually that
[itex]\dfrac{d}{dt}(\underline{x} +\underline{dx}-\underline{x})[/itex] [itex]=\dfrac{d}{dt}(\underline{x} +\underline{dx})-\dfrac{d}{dt}(\underline{x} )[/itex]​
I can't see that clearly though. Is there any physical explanation ? May be an approximation since we're dealing with elementary vectors...

Regards.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The material time derivative of an arbitrari vector field is derived as follows: In a little time increment [itex]\mathrm{d}t[/itex] on the one hand the vector field changes due to its own time dependence, [itex]\mathrm{d} t \partial_t \vec{A}[/itex]. On the other hand, the fluid element that was at position [itex]\vec{x}[/itex] at time [itex]t[/itex], will have moved by [itex]\mathrm{d} \vec{x}=\mathrm{d}t \vec{v}[/itex]. So the material time derivative is given by
[tex]\mathrm{D}_t \vec{A}=\partial_t \vec{A}+(\vec{v}\cdot \nabla)\vec{A}.[/tex]
 
Thanks for the reply.

The expression that I know for the material derivative of a vector (and in general a tensor of any order) [itex]\vec{A}[/itex] is
[itex]D_t \vec{A} = \dfrac{\partial \vec{A}}{ \partial t} + \nabla \vec{A} .\underline{v}[/itex]​
Anyhow, a way of seing the equality is :
[itex]\dfrac{d}{dt} (dx)=dv[/itex]​
that is adimitting that
[itex]\dfrac{d}{dt dv} (dx)=\dfrac{d^2 x}{dt dv}=\dfrac{d}{dv}\Big ( \dfrac{dx}{dt}\Big) =1[/itex]​
but I can't tell why is it peculiar to the eulerian description.
 
I'm not so sure what your notation in the 2nd term of the material time derivative should mean. As derived in my previous posting, the correct expression in usual nabla-calculus notation is
[tex]\mathrm{D}_t \vec{A}=\partial_t \vec{A} + (\vec{v} \cdot \vec{\nabla}) \vec{A}.[/tex]
In component-Ricci calculus notation, including Einstein-summation notation and strictly distinguishing co- and contravariant components (which is very useful also for Cartesian components as here!) what's meant is
[tex](\mathrm{D}_t A^{j})=\partial_t A^j + v^k \partial_k A^j.[/tex]
Note that
[tex]\partial_k = \frac{\partial}{\partial x^k}.[/tex]
 
Yes this is what I meant too, it was just a matter of notation. But as you notice, there is no velocity gradient in the material derivative of dx, whereas it is stated that [itex]\dfrac{d}{dt} (dx)=\nabla v . dx[/itex]
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K