- #1

Physicist97

- 31

- 4

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter Physicist97
- Start date

In summary: Interesting. The Boussinesq approximation says that if you know the density of the fluid and the compressibility of the fluid, you can approximate the pressure and velocity by solving the equation for ##\vec{p}## and ##\vec{v}##.

- #1

Physicist97

- 31

- 4

Physics news on Phys.org

- #2

- 23,493

- 5,773

Chet

- #3

- 3,455

- 1,249

- #4

- 23,493

- 5,773

Show us what forms of the equations you are referring to.Physicist97 said:

I hope you are aware that the NS equations are a combination of two other equations: (1) the general momentum balance equation, expressed in terms of the divergence of the stress tensor and (2) the rheological constitutive equation for a Newtonian fluid (including compressibility if required), expressed in terms of the isotropic pressure and the rate of deformation tensor. Which of these equations are you having difficulty with, if either? Or, is it just that you don't understand how the equations are combined?

Chet

- #5

GiuseppeR7

- 61

- 2

The compressible NS equations are the NS equations without the Bousinneq simplification or anything like that.

- #6

- 3,455

- 1,249

In terms of the Navier-Stokes equations, whether or not they are valid for compressible flow or not depends on whether ##\nabla \cdot \vec{v} = 0## was assumed in the derivation. If not, there will be a second coefficient of viscosity and dilatational terms in the equations that otherwise would have been zeroed in the case of the more classical NS equations.

- #7

- #8

- 3,455

- 1,249

- #9

GiuseppeR7

- 61

- 2

It' s the textbook that we use in our fluid mechanics course by Kundu and Cohen

- #10

- 23,493

- 5,773

I've never heard of it referred to that way either. In any event, the continuity ratio is regarded as separate from the NS equations.boneh3ad said:

- #11

GiuseppeR7

- 61

- 2

Chestermiller said:I've never heard of it referred to that way either. In any event, the continuity ratio is regarded as separate from the NS equations.

yes that is true but Anderson is suggesting a change in the trend (even if he is really referring to CFD)

- #12

- 23,493

- 5,773

Interesting.GiuseppeR7 said:yes that is true but Anderson is suggesting a change in the trend (even if he is really referring to CFD)

Chet

- #13

- 3,455

- 1,249

I've heard a lot of people (including myself) use "Navier-Stokes" to refer to the whole system. I generally hear it (and use it) to refer to the full compressible equations (continuity, momentum, energy and state) and then try to specify incompressible or compressible to remove any ambiguity. Either way, if a ##\lambda## or ##\nabla\cdot\vec{v}## show up in the momentum equations, you can be pretty confident in assuming that the equations are at least intended for use in a compressible flow.

Also, I believe I see where this other definition of "Boussinesq approximation" is originating. Basically, the Boussinesq approximation says that changes in ##\rho## are too small to affect the flow field except when they arise in conjunction with gravity (i.e. they only matter when they give rise to buoyancy effects). One of the consequences of this is that the ##D\rho/Dt## term in the continuity equation is eliminated since it is assumed to be small, reducing the continuity equation to its incompressible form. However, this is not the same as simply assuming the flow is incompressible in the first place, even if they are functionally similar. For example, it makes no sense to make a Boussinesq approximation in a horizontal, isothermal flow of air at 20 m/s at sea level over a sphere. That is not a situation where buoyancy is likely to matter. However, it is perfectly justified to call that incompressible.

I'll also add that while the Boussinesq approximation results in the incompressible continuity equation, the momentum equations using the Boussinesq approximation are*not* identical to those obtained from the incompressible assumption. Using the Boussinesq approximation, the body force term does not assume a constant density like the convective term does, and so density is still a variable, not a constant.

Also, I believe I see where this other definition of "Boussinesq approximation" is originating. Basically, the Boussinesq approximation says that changes in ##\rho## are too small to affect the flow field except when they arise in conjunction with gravity (i.e. they only matter when they give rise to buoyancy effects). One of the consequences of this is that the ##D\rho/Dt## term in the continuity equation is eliminated since it is assumed to be small, reducing the continuity equation to its incompressible form. However, this is not the same as simply assuming the flow is incompressible in the first place, even if they are functionally similar. For example, it makes no sense to make a Boussinesq approximation in a horizontal, isothermal flow of air at 20 m/s at sea level over a sphere. That is not a situation where buoyancy is likely to matter. However, it is perfectly justified to call that incompressible.

I'll also add that while the Boussinesq approximation results in the incompressible continuity equation, the momentum equations using the Boussinesq approximation are

Last edited:

- #14

- 7,499

- 3,282

Chestermiller said:Show us what forms of the equations you are referring to.

I hope you are aware that the NS equations are a combination of two other equations: (1) the general momentum balance equation, expressed in terms of the divergence of the stress tensor and (2) the rheological constitutive equation for a Newtonian fluid (including compressibility if required), expressed in terms of the isotropic pressure and the rate of deformation tensor. Which of these equations are you having difficulty with, if either? Or, is it just that you don't understand how the equations are combined?

Chet

I agree (Bird's Transport Phenomena is a great text, Slattery's "Interfacial Transport Phenomena" is my go-to reference), but to slightly expand, I would say there are 3 relevant equations (mass balance, momentum balance, and energy balance) and one or more constitutive relations to account for material properties. And to be really ugly, add in jump conditions as needed.

- #15

Physicist97

- 31

- 4

- #16

- 3,455

- 1,249

- #17

- 23,493

- 5,773

This is just the momentum balance equation, without being combined with the mechanical constitutive equation for a Newtonian fluid. It applies to any material, not just a fluid. Included here would be a solid, or a viscoelastic material, etc. Incidentally, there is supposed to be a "dot" between the ∇ operator and the stress tensor σ. It should read:Physicist97 said:Hello guys, thanks for all the amazing replies! I looked into Transport Phenomena by Bird and found the equation written ##{\rho}{\frac{Du}{Dt}}={\mu}{\nabla^{2}}u-{\nabla}p+f_{body}## , where ##f_{body}## is a vector that indicates the body force density on the fluid and ##{\mu}## is a viscosity constant. In Transport Phenomena ##f_{body}## was simply taken as gravity. ##u## is also a vector (I'm sorry I don't know how to use LaTeX notation to put an arrow over the vector). I had also heard this equation stated as ##{\rho}{\frac{Du}{Dt}}={\nabla}{\sigma}+f_{body}## .

$${\rho}{\frac{D\vec{u}}{Dt}}=\vec{\nabla} \centerdot \vec{σ}+\vec{f}_{body}\tag{momentum balance eqn.}$$

So this is not the NS equation(s) until it is combined with the constitutive equation for a Newtonian fluid. For the special case of an

$$\vec{σ}=-p\vec{I}+μ\left(\vec{∇} \vec{u}+(\vec{∇} \vec{u})^T\right)$$

where ##\vec{I}## is the identity tensor and ##(\vec{∇} \vec{u})^T## is the transpose of the velocity gradient tensor ##\vec{∇} \vec{u}##.

There is no such thing, because the NS Equations have already eliminated the stress tensor by combining the momentum balance equation with the constitutive equation for a Newtonian fluid. That being said, the equation you are really looking for is the momentum balance equation (above).I would like to find the NS Equations written in a form using the stress tensor.

This is the continuity equation for cases in which the fluid density is not changing with time (i.e., steady state flow). There should be a "dot" in this equation also:I also now that the ##{\nabla}({\rho}u)=0##

$$\vec{\nabla} \centerdot (\rho \vec{u})=\vec{0}$$

The continuity equation and the equation for conservation of mass are synonymous.I don't know if this is a continuity equation or the equation for conservation of mass.

Chet

Last edited:

- #18

Physicist97

- 31

- 4

boneh3ad said:notvalid for compressible flow.

What would the equation be for a compressible fluid? Also, I did not know that conservation of mass and the continuity equation were equivalent, thank you and Chestermiller for that information.

- #19

- 23,493

- 5,773

Physicist97 said:What would the equation be for a compressible fluid? Also, I did not know that conservation of mass and the continuity equation were equivalent, thank you and Chestermiller for that information.

If you want the constitutive equation for a compressible Newtonian fluid, see Eqn. 1.2-7 in Bird, Stewart, and Lightfoot, in which, in our notation, ##\vec{τ}=-(\vec{σ}+p\vec{I})## and ##\vec{δ}=\vec{I}##.

Chet

- #20

- 3,455

- 1,249

Chestermiller said:If you want the constitutive equation for a compressible Newtonian fluid, see Eqn. 1.2-7 in Bird, Stewart, and Lightfoot, in which, in our notation, ##\vec{τ}=-(\vec{σ}+p\vec{I})## and ##\vec{δ}=\vec{I}##.

Chet

Maybe I am missing something (literally, I suppose), but did you forget the dilatational term? There ought to be a ##\lambda I \nabla\cdot\vec{v}## somewhere, right?

- #21

- 23,493

- 5,773

Yes, right on. The dilatational term is in the explicit expression that Bird et al give for ##\vec{τ}## (Eqn. 1.2-7).boneh3ad said:Maybe I am missing something (literally, I suppose), but did you forget the dilatational term? There ought to be a ##\lambda I \nabla\cdot\vec{v}## somewhere, right?

Chet

- #22

- 3,455

- 1,249

Chestermiller said:Yes, right on. The dilatational term is in the explicit expression that Bird et al give for ##\vec{τ}## (Eqn. 1.2-7).

Chet

As that is not in my library, I had no way of checking what was actually in Bird

At any rate, then, the stress tensor ought to be

[tex]\tau_{ij} = -p\delta_{ij} + \mu\left( \dfrac{\partial u_i}{\partial x_j} + \dfrac{\partial u_j}{\partial x_i} \right) + \delta_{ij}\lambda \dfrac{\partial u_k}{\partial x_k}.[/tex]

For an incompressible flow, where ##\nabla\cdot\vec{v} = \partial u_k/\partial x_k = 0##, this reduces to the more familiar stress tensor

[tex]\tau_{ij} = -p\delta_{ij} + \mu\left( \dfrac{\partial u_i}{\partial x_j} + \dfrac{\partial u_j}{\partial x_i} \right)[/tex]

and ##\lambda## is not important.

I suppose I should also point out that since the interest here is compressible flow, you cannot ignore the energy equation. In an incompressible flow, the density is treated as constant and the energy equation can be solve after solving for the flowfield. This is not the case for a compressible flow. Since density is now a variable, you need an additional equation. The energy equation can cover the density variable, but also introduces temperature as a variable (which is, in general, not constant), so you need a sixth equation to solve the system. This is an equation of state. Typically, for a gas, this ends up being the ideal gas law (or perhaps a real gas law if you care about real gas effects).

The moral of the story is you need 6 equations now: mass, 3 momentum equations, energy, and an equation of state.

Last edited:

- #23

- 23,493

- 5,773

Hi Boneh3ad,boneh3ad said:As that is not in my library, I had no way of checking what was actually in Birdet al., and I am sure you are aware of how obnoxious it is that different authors use many different notations for these things.

At any rate, then, the stress tensor ought to be

[tex]\tau_{ij} = -p\delta_{ij} + \mu\left( \dfrac{\partial u_i}{\partial x_j} + \dfrac{\partial u_j}{\partial x_i} \right) + \delta_{ij}\lambda \dfrac{\partial u_k}{\partial x_k}.[/tex]

I'm going to try to get us all on the same page with regard to the notational differences.

What you call τ

What you call λ, BSL call ##(k-\frac{2}{3}μ)##, where k is what they call the dilatational viscosity. For a monatomic gas, k = 0.

So, in terms of the tensor object notation that I used in an earlier post, for a compressible Newtonian fluid:

$$\vec{σ}=-p\vec{I}+μ\left(\vec{∇} \vec{u}+(\vec{∇} \vec{u})^T\right)+λ(\vec{∇}\centerdot \vec{v})\vec{I}=-p\vec{I}+μ\left(\vec{∇} \vec{u}+(\vec{∇} \vec{u})^T\right)+(k-\frac{2}{3}μ)(\vec{∇}\centerdot \vec{v})\vec{I}$$

Hope this helps.

Chet

The Navier-Stokes Equations for a Compressible Fluid are a set of mathematical equations that describe the motion of a compressible fluid, taking into account factors such as pressure, viscosity, and density.

The Navier-Stokes Equations are fundamental to understanding the behavior of fluids, and they have wide-ranging applications in fields such as aerospace engineering, meteorology, and oceanography. They are also used in the development of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations.

The Navier-Stokes Equations are notoriously difficult to solve, especially for turbulent flows. In fact, they are one of the seven Millennium Prize Problems in mathematics, with a $1 million prize offered by the Clay Mathematics Institute for a correct solution.

The main difference between the two sets of equations is that the Navier-Stokes Equations for a compressible fluid take into account changes in density, while the equations for an incompressible fluid assume constant density. This makes the equations for a compressible fluid more complex and difficult to solve.

The Navier-Stokes Equations are used in a variety of practical applications, such as designing aircraft and other vehicles, predicting weather patterns, and optimizing the efficiency of industrial processes. They are also used in research and development of new technologies and materials.

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 598

- Replies
- 18

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 7

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 20

- Views
- 5K

- Replies
- 8

- Views
- 3K

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 4K

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 3K

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 8K

Share: