Fuids - vorticity from viscocity

  • Thread starter Thread starter julian
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Vorticity
AI Thread Summary
Inviscid flow that begins with no vorticity will not produce vorticity, as only viscous shear forces can induce rotary motion. The Navier-Stokes equations support this, showing that if the flow is initially irrotational, it remains so over time. In two-dimensional flow, the vorticity transport equation simplifies, confirming that vorticity remains zero if it starts at zero. While the theoretical framework suggests no vorticity production without initial presence, real-world scenarios often violate this due to conditions like the no-slip condition at solid boundaries. Ultimately, vorticity can emerge from various phenomena, but the no-slip condition is a primary factor in its generation.
julian
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
857
Reaction score
361
If invisid flow starts with no vorticity then no vorticity will be produced. This can be understood
intuitively: we note that of the three types of force that can act on a cubic fluid
element, the pressure, body forces, and viscous forces, only the viscous shear forces are
able to give rotary motion. Hence if the viscous effects are nonexistent, vorticity cannot
be introduced.

Can this be derived from the Navier-Stokes equations for vorticity:

\dfrac{\partial \vec{\omega}}{\partial t} + \vec{u} \cdot \nabla \vec{\omega} = \vec{\omega} \cdot \nabla \vec{u} + \nu \nabla^2 \vec{\omega}

\nabla \cdot \vec{u} = 0?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Sure. Note that the vorticity transport equation can be rewritten with the material derivative instead
\dfrac{\partial \vec{\omega}}{\partial t} + \vec{u}\cdot\nabla\vec{\omega} = \dfrac{D\vec{\omega}}{Dt} = \vec{\omega}\cdot\nabla\vec{u} + \nu\nabla^2\vec{\omega}.

For an inviscid flow, that last term is zero (or neglected), that leaves
\dfrac{D\vec{\omega}}{Dt} = \vec{\omega}\cdot\nabla\vec{u}.

So basically, this states that if the flow is irrotational initially, then ##\vec{\omega}(t=0) = 0##, and therefore
\dfrac{D\vec{\omega}}{Dt} = 0,
meaning the flow remains irrotational forever. That does leave open the possibility that if the flow initially contains some vorticity, the vorticity can change over time and space.

If you want to take that further, consider a 2-D flow, in which case the ##\vec{\omega}\cdot\nabla\vec{u}## term drops out as well (it only only contains derivatives in the direction that is zero by the 2-D definition) and
\dfrac{D\vec{\omega}}{Dt} \equiv 0
regardless of initial conditions.

This whole concept is known as Kelvin's theorem.
 
Thanks for that. I also want to know if you start with no vorticity at an instant in time, will the presence of the viscous term lead to the production of vorticity?

In 2D the vorticity equation is just the diffusion equation for the vorticity, and from what I know about that I would say that if there was no vorticity to start with there would be no production of vorticity.

Can vorticity only be produced from the non-slip condition for solid objects?
 
Last edited:
Apologies for the late response; it's been a busy weekend.

Anyway, in theory, according to the vorticity transport equation, if you start with no vorticity you should never have any. However, this simply can't happen in most real flows subject to, as you said, the no-slip condition except in a few instances (e.g. Couette flow). Vorticity can also be "produced" through phenomena like free shear layers, but the no-slip condition is the big one.
 
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