Navier-Stokes Problem: Solving for Pressure Gradient in a 2D Rectangular Cavity

  • Thread starter Thread starter member 428835
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Navier-stokes
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around solving the Navier-Stokes equations for a 2D rectangular cavity filled with liquid, focusing on the pressure gradient and velocity profiles under specific boundary conditions. Participants explore the implications of flow assumptions, pressure gradients, and integral constraints in the context of fluid dynamics.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes the setup of a rectangular cavity with a moving top plate and derives the Navier-Stokes equation for the velocity profile, suggesting that the pressure gradient can be computed from the velocity profile.
  • Another participant requests clarification through a sketch to better understand the geometry described.
  • Some participants agree on the validity of the integral constraint for flow rate being zero, while others express uncertainty about its application in different scenarios.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of not assuming negligible y-velocity, leading to a more complex set of equations that include both velocity components.
  • One participant raises a concern about the number of boundary conditions, suggesting that the problem may be over-specified if both velocity components are considered.
  • Another participant asserts that pressure gradients are significant and must be included in the analysis, questioning how to incorporate them effectively.
  • There is a mention of the qualitative nature of the solution remaining unchanged when the channel's depth is increased.
  • Participants discuss the importance of considering low Reynolds number conditions to simplify the problem before addressing more complex scenarios involving inertia.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the need to consider pressure gradients and the integral constraint, but there is disagreement on how these concepts apply under different assumptions about velocity components. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to set up the equations for the 2D case.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the assumptions made regarding velocity components and the implications of pressure gradients, indicating that the discussion is highly technical and dependent on specific fluid dynamics principles.

  • #31
I'm having second thoughts on your equation for ##\omega##. Shouldn't it be a function of x times a function of y, not the sum of such functions?

cosh cos, cosh sin, sinh cos, sinh sin
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: member 428835
Engineering news on Phys.org
  • #32
Chestermiller said:
I'm having second thoughts on your equation for ##\omega##. Shouldn't it be a function of x times a function of y, not the sum of such functions?

cosh cos, cosh sin, sinh cos, sinh sin

Shoot, you're totally right. Then ##\nabla \cdot \psi = \omega## is not separable. I can't think of a way to analytically solve. How would you do this numerically? Finite difference ##\nabla^4 \psi=0##?
 
  • #33
joshmccraney said:
Shoot, you're totally right. Then ##\nabla \cdot \psi = \omega## is not separable. I can't think of a way to analytically solve. How would you do this numerically? Finite difference ##\nabla^4 \psi=0##?
No. Solve the equations involving both omega and psi. The only tricky part is numerically specifying the boundary conditions on omega. But I know how to do that.
 
  • #34
Yea, how do you do that?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
9K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K