Navier stokes equeations, shear term

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the confusion surrounding the term d/dx(tau_xx) in the x-momentum equation of the Navier-Stokes equations, specifically regarding its physical interpretation as a shear stress in the x-direction. Participants note that while terms like tau_xy and tau_xz are straightforward, tau_xx's role is less clear, leading to questions about its inclusion alongside normal stress terms. The conversation highlights the complexities introduced by viscosity, suggesting that the shear stress may relate to a "glue-effect" that influences normal strains and velocity gradients. Additionally, the analogy between Reynolds stress and kinetic theory is mentioned, indicating that the stress tensor can reflect both isotropic pressure and turbulent viscosity. Overall, the need for clearer explanations in educational resources is emphasized, as participants seek a deeper understanding of these concepts.
navalstudent
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hey!, I was repeating for myself a course I had from a earlier year, fluid mechanics. I looked at the derivation of the navier stokes equations, and there is one term that does not give meaning to me.


Take a look at the x-momentum equation here:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/nseqs.html

The term I don't get is the d/dx(tau_xx). I mean what does this term mean physically? It is a shear stress in the x-direction that is acting on the the surface wit an x-normal? Tau_xy and tau_xz is easy to understand from ordinary mechanics, but not tau_xx. I tought only the term -d/dx(P) would give a normal stress in the x-direction.

So can someone please explain to me how we can have a shear stress in the x-direction acting on the x surface(y-z-plane).
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That is an odd way to write the equations; I thought the diagonal components of the stress tensor (tau_xx, tau_yy, tau_zz) end up in the pressure term.
 
Andy Resnick said:
That is an odd way to write the equations; I thought the diagonal components of the stress tensor (tau_xx, tau_yy, tau_zz) end up in the pressure term.

Hello Andy Resnick.

That is what I also tought at first, but the fact is that these terms are not the classical preassure terms. And I still have not been able to find a physical explanation for them.

Could one say that since the fluid has viscosity, we will have a "glue-effect", so that the normal strains contains preassure terms, and since the fluid is sticky, the viscosity will "drag" the fluid forward?(if we have a velocity gradient in the normal-direction). Note: I have not talked about shear-stresses here.
 
here's what I dug up:

keywords: Turbulence modeling, dynamic viscocity (aka absolute viscocity), reynold's stress

wiki said:
It should also be noted that the theory of the Reynolds stress is quite analogous to the kinetic theory of gases, and indeed the stress tensor in a fluid at a point may be seen to be the ensemble average of the stress due to the thermal velocities of molecules at a given point in a fluid. Thus, by analogy, the Reynolds stress is sometimes thought of as consisting of an isotropic pressure part, termed the turbulent pressure, and an off-diagonal part which may be thought of as an effective turbulent viscosity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reynolds_stress

Dynamic Viscocity:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/dynamic-absolute-kinematic-viscosity-d_412.html
 
I tried parsing my go-to reference for this stuff (Non-Linear field theories of Mechanics, Handbuch der Physics vol III/3) and was promptly confused.

They do write down a general constitutive relation for fluids T + p1, and there is no restriction on the Cauchy stress tensor, but by the time they get to Korteweg's theory, I got lost in a maze of tensor representation theorems.

I wish the GRC site gave a little more information, instead of just tossing out a formula.
 
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