Fluid Mechanics'Deriving' Incompressible Flow Criteria

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around deriving criteria for when a flow can be considered approximately incompressible in fluid mechanics. It involves exploring mathematical expressions and approximations related to density and velocity in the continuity equation.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the derivation steps from an expression involving density approximations to the criteria for incompressibility.
  • Another participant provides a clarification on the mathematical manipulation of the continuity equation, suggesting that if a certain term is negligible, it can be ignored.
  • A participant questions the notation change from partial derivatives to delta symbols, speculating that it indicates a shift from derivatives to relations between changes.
  • Another participant elaborates that the reasoning for the transition from (2) to (3) involves considering the components of velocity and their relationship to density changes, emphasizing the need for consistency across all velocity components.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion contains multiple viewpoints and interpretations regarding the derivation process and the mathematical reasoning involved. There is no consensus on the clarity of the derivation steps or the notation used.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential ambiguities in the derivation process, including the assumptions made during the transition between different mathematical expressions and the implications of changing notation.

Saladsamurai
Messages
3,009
Reaction score
7
Here we go...

My text attempts to 'derive' an expression that explains when a flow is compressible or not:

]When is a given flow approximately incompressible? We can derive a nice criterion by playing a little fast and loose with density approximations...

Great :rolleyes: ... if there's anything I like better than making density approximations, it's playing 'fast and loose' with them. :smile:

He then goes on to say:
..In essence, we wish to slip the density out of the divergence in the continuity equation and approximate a typical term as
[tex]\frac{\partial{}}{\partial{x}} (\rho u)\approx\rho\frac{\partial{u}}{\partial{x}} \qquad (1)[/tex]

This is equivalent to the strong inequality

[tex] <br /> |u\frac{\partial{\rho}}{\partial{x}}|\ll |\rho\frac{\partial{u}}{\partial{x}}| \qquad (2)<br /> [/tex]

or

[tex] <br /> |\frac{\delta\rho}{\rho}|\ll|\frac{\delta V}{V}| \qquad (3)[/tex]

I am completely baffled as to how we went from (1) to (2) ...let alone from (2) to (3)?
Any thoughts?

Casey
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi Casey! :smile:

∂(ρu)/∂x = u∂ρ/∂x + ρ∂u/∂x,

so if u∂ρ/∂x << ρ∂u/∂x, we can ignore it, and then ∂(ρu)/∂x ~ ρ∂u/∂x. :wink:

(2) to (3) is simply rearrangement (and changing u to V for some reason which escapes me)
 
Oh...that darned chain rule! :smile: Thanks tiny-tim.

Also, silly question, but why did we change the ∂'s into [itex]\delta[/itex]'s ?

Is it because the (∂x)'s 'canceled' and thus it is no longer a derivative, but just a relation between 'changes?'
 
(2) to (3) is based upon the fact that this argument must be repeated for the v and w-components as well, and hence, that the relative infinitesemal change in density must be much less than the relative infinitesemal change in the maximal velocity component, and hence, much less than the relative infinitesemal change in the fluid speed.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K