Need help with fourier transformation to derive oseen tensor.

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on deriving the Oseen tensor from the Navier-Stokes equations for an incompressible fluid, specifically under the assumption that inertia forces are negligible. The key equations involved are the Navier-Stokes equation, which simplifies to -∇P + ηΔv + f = 0, and the Fourier transform of the velocity field, leading to the transformed equations k·vk = 0 and -ηk²vk - ikPk = -fk. Participants noted the lack of detailed derivation in standard texts and shared insights on the transformation process.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Navier-Stokes equations
  • Familiarity with Fourier transforms
  • Knowledge of fluid dynamics principles
  • Basic mathematical skills in vector calculus
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the Oseen tensor from the Navier-Stokes equations
  • Learn about Fourier transform applications in fluid dynamics
  • Explore the implications of neglecting inertia forces in fluid equations
  • Review advanced topics in incompressible fluid flow
USEFUL FOR

Students and researchers in fluid dynamics, particularly those working on theoretical aspects of incompressible flows and tensor analysis.

Hoeni
Messages
5
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Derive the Oseen tensor from the Navier-Stokes equation, Consider an incompressible fluid where the velocity field \vec{v}(\vec{r},t) is given by
\nabla.\vec{v}=0 (1)
Assume inertia forces are negligible.

Homework Equations


The Navier-Stokes eq becomes:
-\nablaP+\eta\Delta\vec{v}+\vec{f}=0 (2)
With pressure P, \eta the fluid viscosity and f the force acting on a unit volume.

Now we define the Fourier transform as \vec{v}k=\int\vec{v}(\vec{r}) exp[i \vec{k}.\vec{r}] d\vec{r} and so on.
Show that eq (1) and (2) can be rewritten as:
\vec{k}.\vec{v}k=0 and -\eta \vec{k}^{2} \vec{v}k - i\vec{k} Pk = -\vec{f}k (3)

The Attempt at a Solution


In every book it is just said that Fourier transforming eq (1) and (2) just leads to (3) but it is not explained. I've tried it but maybe someone can help me. Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
There is a nice derivation in the attached file.
 

Attachments

Haha, thank you!
but I posted this question in 2009 and as I remember correctly was able to figure it out in the end and hand in my exercises.
To save you some time, next time check the data of the post!
Cheers
 
I saw the date actually; just figured it might be useful to someone else at some point.
 
You are right, didn't think about it. I never posted my answer, doubt I still have it.
Good job!
 
thanks it was useful to me!
 
Good to hear!
 

Similar threads

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