Fluid Mechanics: Constant Pressure and Incompressible flow

AI Thread Summary
In incompressible flow, the assumption of constant pressure can be problematic, especially when considering thermal effects like heating, which would typically increase pressure if volume remains constant. The discussion highlights confusion around the derivation of MHD temperature equations, particularly regarding the disappearance of the substantial derivative of pressure. Participants debate whether the book's assertion that dh = Cp dT is correct, given the thermodynamic implications for incompressible fluids. The consensus suggests that the book may have made an error in its formulation. Overall, the relationship between pressure, temperature, and incompressibility in fluid mechanics remains a complex topic requiring careful consideration.
olski1
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Assuming a flow can be idealised as incompressible, then can you use the constant pressure assumption ?

I just want to get my understanding clear. My problem is the following.Consider a fluid element with volume ##V## and a fixed number of molecules. If the flow is incompressible, then the volume of this element does not change. Right? (otherwise the density would change). Then if the volume does not change, and say you heated it through some process (Joule dissipation, Viscous Dissipation, Conduction etc), then the pressure would have to increase right? So hence, you cannot use the constant pressure assumption and the incompressible assumption at the same time?

The reason I am asking is because I am looking at some MHD temperature equation derivations. There is one step where the substantial derivative ##DP/DT## disappears, where ##P## is the pressure field. There is no reason given, but if it does, then there must be some assumption that the pressure field is atleast approximately constant in both space and time. But how can this be if the fluid is also considered incompressible?

Here is the equations that have confused me

\rho \frac{Dh}{Dt} = \frac{Dp}{Dt} + \rho \dot{q}_{rad} + \nabla \cdot (k \nabla T) + \frac{1}{\sigma}\mathbf{j}^2+ \mu \nabla^2 \mathbf{V}

\rho c_p\left(\frac{\partial T}{\partial t} + (\mathbf{V} \cdot \nabla)T\right) = \rho \dot{q}_{rad} + \nabla \cdot (k \nabla T) + \frac{1}{\sigma}\mathbf{j}^2+ \mu \nabla^2 \mathbf{V}

Note that the LHS is just the definition of enthalpy substituted for ##h=c_pT## and the substantial derivative being expanded.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Thermodynamically, for an incompressible fluid dh = CpdT + vdP = CpdT + dP/ρ

Chet
 
  • Like
Likes olski1
Chestermiller said:
Thermodynamically, for an incompressible fluid dh = CpdT + vdP = CpdT + dP/ρ

Chet
...and that's the key...thanks Chester, so the book used the wrong formula.
 
olski1 said:
...and that's the key...thanks Chester, so the book used the wrong formula.
I'm not sure the book used the wrong formula. Did they actually say that dh = Cp dT? Both equations form the book look consistent with the equation I wrote down.

Chet
 
Chestermiller said:
I'm not sure the book used the wrong formula. Did they actually say that dh = Cp dT? Both equations form the book look consistent with the equation I wrote down.

Chet
Yes, the book stated dh=cpdT bizarrely
 
olski1 said:
Yes, the book stated dh=cpdT bizarrely
Go figure. Even the experts make mistakes.

Chet
 
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top