Laplacian term in Navier-Stokes equation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the derivation of the Laplacian term in the Navier-Stokes equations, specifically addressing the transition from a form involving viscosity and derivatives to the Laplacian operator. Participants are examining the mathematical steps involved in this derivation, including the treatment of indices and the implications of the divergence of the velocity field.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant derives a term from the Navier-Stokes equations and questions the appearance of a factor of 2 in their calculation of the Laplacian term.
  • Another participant suggests keeping the divergence and terms together to clarify the summation over indices.
  • A participant challenges the assumption that the transpose of the gradient of velocity equals the gradient itself, questioning the resulting factor of 2 in the derivation.
  • Further clarification is provided regarding the presence of repeated indices in the original equation, which may affect the interpretation of the terms.
  • Another participant notes that the divergence of the velocity field is zero, simplifying the expression to just the Laplacian term.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the treatment of indices and the assumptions regarding the transpose of the gradient. There is no consensus on the correct interpretation of these mathematical steps, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential misunderstandings regarding index notation and the implications of the divergence of the velocity field, which may affect the derivation of the Laplacian term.

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:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
991