Laplacian term in Navier-Stokes equation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving part of the Navier-Stokes equations, specifically addressing the discrepancy in terms involving viscosity, η. The user initially calculates a factor of 2η in their derivation, questioning the assumption that the transpose of the gradient, ∇u^T, equals ∇u. Clarification is provided that the divergence of the velocity field u is zero, leading to the conclusion that the second term in their equation vanishes. Ultimately, the correct formulation results in η∇²u_i, aligning with the expected vector form in the equations. The conversation highlights the importance of careful notation and understanding of divergence in fluid dynamics.
Hypatio
Messages
147
Reaction score
1
I am trying to derive part of the navier-stokes equations. Consider the following link:

http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~cdp/Desktop/Navier-Stokes%20Eqn.pdf

Equation 1, without the lambda term, is given in vector form in Equation 3 as \eta\nabla^2\mathbf{u}. However, when I try to get this from Eq. 1, I get 2\eta\nabla^2\mathbf{u}. I am getting 2\eta because

\eta\left(\frac{\partial u_i}{\partial x_j}+\frac{\partial u_j}{\partial x_i}\right)=\eta(\nabla \mathbf{u}+\nabla \mathbf{u}^T)=2\eta\nabla \mathbf{u}
and then the taking the divergence gives \nabla\cdot 2\eta\nabla\mathbf{u}=2\eta\nabla^2\mathbf{u} for constant viscosity \eta

I suspect that my second step in the first line is wrong. But I don't get it.

Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You might want to keep the divergence and the terms in the parentheses together to remind yourself that you only sum over the j subscript (which is repeated).

You should notice that the derivatives of the second term in the parentheses add up to the divergence of u.
 
I don't see a repeated subscript. Do you mean that \nabla\mathbf{u}^T=\nabla\mathbf{u}? That is in fact my assumption and thus why I get 2*eta, not eta. Is this not true?:

\eta(\nabla\mathbf{u}+\nabla\mathbf{u}^T)=2\eta\nabla\mathbf{u}

if so, what happened to the 2?

What rules am I missing??
 
Hypatio said:
I don't see a repeated subscript.
In the original Eq. 1:
$$\frac{\partial} {\partial x_j} \left[ \eta\left(\frac{\partial u_i}{\partial x_j}+\frac{\partial u_j}{\partial x_i}\right) + \ldots \right]$$ has the subscript ##j## both outside and inside the parentheses.
 
The i-th component of the force (rewriting equation 1 with \lambda=0 ) is

F_i=\eta\sum\limits_{j}{\frac{\partial^2{u_i}}{\partial^2{x_j}}}+\eta \frac{\partial}{\partial{x_i}}\sum\limits_{j}\frac{\partial{u_j}} {\partial{x_j}}.

The second term is zero cause the divergence of u is zero hence all that is left is \eta\sum\limits_{j}{\frac{\partial^2{u_i}}{\partial^2{x_j}}}=\eta\nabla^2u_i.
 
Last edited:
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