A Fluid Boundary Layer Mathy Question

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on transforming a boundary value problem (BVP) related to the Navier-Stokes equations into an initial value problem (IVP). The key equation derived is f f'' + f''' = 0, with specific boundary conditions. The transformation involves defining a new function g_C that relates to the original function f and introduces a scaling factor C. The challenge arises in specifying conditions for F''(0) while maintaining consistency with the derived relationships. Additionally, there is a query about transforming another BVP, y'' + 6y^{2/3} = 0, into an IVP for numerical solutions, highlighting the need for clarity on when such transformations are viable.
member 428835
Hi PF!

So after scaling Navier-Stokes for a flow over a flat plate we ultimately arrive at ##f f'' + f''' = 0## subject to ##f(0)=0##, ##f'(0)=0##, and ##f'(\infty) = 1## where independent variable is ##\eta##. The source I was reading is trying to reduce this BVP to an IVP. Thus they suggest for some solution ##F(\eta)##, ##CF(C \eta)## also is a solution. Then we have $$1 = \lim_{\eta \to \infty} f'(\eta) = C^2 \lim_{\eta \to \infty} F'(C \eta) \implies C = \left( \lim_{\eta \to \infty} F'(\eta) \right)^{-1/2}$$. But this is where it get's strange. They then say "if we specify ##F''(0) = 1##... but how can they do this? We know ##f''(0) = C^3 F''(0) \implies F''(0) = f''(0) C^{-3}## but ##C## has already been specified.

The link to this is here: http://web.mit.edu/fluids-modules/www/highspeed_flows/ver2/bl_Chap2.pdf around eq. (3.48)

Any help at understanding this would be awesome!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Let f be the solution of the BVP ff'' + f''' = 0 with f(0) = f'(0) = 0 and f'(\infty) = 1.

Now for each C > 0 define a function g_C(\eta) = Cf(C\eta). Then g_C is the solution of the BVP g_Cg_C'' + g_C''' = 0 with g_C(0) = g_C'(0) = 0 and g_C'(\infty) = C^2. (This is not the original BVP unless C = 1, and by definition g_1 = f anyway.)

Consider the IVP hh'' + h''' = 0 subject to h(0) = h'(0) = 0 and h''(0) = 1. Knowing h we can find f, because h = g_C where C^2 = L = \lim_{x \to \infty} h'(x) (assuming, of course, that this limit exists). Hence by definition of g_C we have f(\eta) = C^{-1}g_C(C^{-1}\eta) = L^{-1/2}h(L^{-1/2}\eta).
 
Gotcha, I think this is making sense! I have a corollary question then, though I can post as a separate thread if that's more appropriate. I am trying to transform this equation to transform this BVP ##y'' + 6 y^{2/3} = 0## subject to ##y'(0)=0## and ##y(1)=0## into an IVP so I can numerically solve it. Right not when I use NDsolve in mathematica I get no output. Any insight on when this transformation is possible, and when it is, how to go about doing it?

I noticed the BVP is invariant when ##y(x) = \lambda^n Y(\lambda^{-n/6} x)##. I'm just unsure how to proceed.
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...

Similar threads

Back
Top