Laplacian term in Navier-Stokes equation

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
4 replies · 4K views
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 [itex]\eta\nabla^2\mathbf{u}[/itex]. However, when I try to get this from Eq. 1, I get [itex]2\eta\nabla^2\mathbf{u}[/itex]. I am getting [itex]2\eta[/itex] because

[itex]\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}[/itex]
and then the taking the divergence gives [itex]\nabla\cdot 2\eta\nabla\mathbf{u}=2\eta\nabla^2\mathbf{u}[/itex] for constant viscosity [itex]\eta[/itex]

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 [itex]\nabla\mathbf{u}^T=\nabla\mathbf{u}[/itex]? That is in fact my assumption and thus why I get 2*eta, not eta. Is this not true?:

[itex]\eta(\nabla\mathbf{u}+\nabla\mathbf{u}^T)=2\eta\nabla\mathbf{u}[/itex]

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 [itex]\lambda=0[/itex] ) is

[itex]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}}[/itex].

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