How Does Gravity Affect Convection Between Two Plates?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the effects of gravity on convection between two plates, specifically addressing the Navier-Stokes equations and their application in this context. The original poster presents equations derived from lecture notes and references a textbook, highlighting a perceived issue when gravity is incorporated into the equations.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the derivation of the Navier-Stokes equations and question the consistency between the equations from lecture notes and the textbook. There is discussion on the treatment of gravitational forces and pressure terms in the equations.

Discussion Status

Some participants are clarifying the definitions and relationships between the variables in the equations. There is an ongoing examination of the assumptions made regarding pressure and gravitational effects, with no explicit consensus reached yet.

Contextual Notes

There are indications that the lecture notes may lack detailed derivations, leading to confusion among participants regarding the application of the equations in different directions. The original poster expresses frustration over the lack of clarity in the notes.

unscientific
Messages
1,728
Reaction score
13

Homework Statement



From my lecture notes, here are the equations for convection between two plates. I have derived equations 9.6, 9.7 and 9.8. But for 9.4 there's a problem when gravity becomes involved.

rcltuh.png


Homework Equations



Navier stokes: ## \rho \frac{D \vec u}{D t} = -\nabla p + \mu \nabla^2 \vec u + \vec F ##

The Attempt at a Solution


[/B]
However, I was reading through Tritton's book on flows where he detailed the derivation:

Starting from the navier-stokes equation:

\rho \frac{D \vec u}{D t} = -\nabla p + \mu \nabla^2 \vec u + \vec F

where ##\vec F## represents contribution of other forces (such as gravity).

They then begin to define ##\vec F##:

By letting density vary, we have ##\rho = \rho_0 + \Delta \rho##. Gravitational acceleration can be defined through a potential: ##\vec g = -\nabla \phi = -\nabla gz##. Thus,

\vec F = -(\rho_0 + \Delta \rho)\nabla \phi = -\nabla(\rho_0 \phi) + \Delta \rho \vec g

Introducing ##P = p + \rho_0 \phi##, navier stokes becomes:

\rho_0 \frac{D\vec u}{D t} = -\nabla P + \mu \nabla^2 \vec u + \Delta \rho \vec g
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You haven't told us what your problem is.

Chet
 
Chestermiller said:
You haven't told us what your problem is.

Chet

Equations 9.5 from the lecture notes and eqn from the book doesn't match
 
unscientific said:
Equations 9.5 from the lecture notes and eqn from the book doesn't match
What it is about them that you feel doesn't match?

Chet
 
Chestermiller said:
What it is about them that you feel doesn't match?

Chet

Substituting ##P## inside and changing ##\nabla## to ##\frac{\partial}{\partial z}##, it gives:

\rho_0 \frac{D\vec u}{D t} = -\nabla P + \mu \nabla^2 \vec u + \Delta \rho \vec g
\rho_0 \frac{D\vec u}{D t} = - \frac{\partial}{\partial z}(p + rho_0 \phi) + \mu \nabla^2 \vec u + \Delta \rho \vec g
\rho_0 \frac{D\vec u}{D t} = - \frac{\partial}{\partial z}(p - rho_0 z \vec g) + \mu \nabla^2 \vec u + \Delta \rho \vec g
\rho_0 \frac{D\vec u}{D t} = - \frac{\partial p}{\partial z} + \rho_0 \vec g + \mu \nabla^2 \vec u + (\rho - \rho_0) \vec g
\rho_0 \frac{D\vec u}{D t} = - \frac{\partial p}{\partial z} + \mu \nabla^2 \vec u + \rho \vec g
\frac{D\vec u}{D t} = - \frac{1}{\rho_0} \frac{\partial p}{\partial z} + \frac{1}{\rho_0}\mu \nabla^2 \vec u + \frac{\rho}{\rho_0} \vec g
 
It appears that the p's in Eqns. 9 are what you are calling P. The ρ0g has apparently been absorbed into the pressure term.

Chet
 
Chestermiller said:
It appears that the p's in Eqns. 9 are what you are calling P. The ρ0g has apparently been absorbed into the pressure term.

Chet

I don't think that's right, as applying the same equation in the horizontal direction (w) gives eqn 9.4. The small ##p## in eqn 9.4 should not include ##\rho_0\phi##.
 
unscientific said:
I don't think that's right, as applying the same equation in the horizontal direction (w) gives eqn 9.4. The small ##p## in eqn 9.4 should not include ##\rho_0\phi##.
The derivative of ##\rho_0g## is zero in the horizontal direction.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: unscientific
Chestermiller said:
The derivative of ##\rho_0g## is zero in the horizontal direction.

Ah that's true. Quite annoying when the lecture notes don't specify the derivation, but this makes sense! Thanks a lot.
 
  • #10
Got the answer, thanks a lot!
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K