Slip Length: u - u_wall = β ∂u/∂n

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the formula for slip length in fluid dynamics, specifically the equation u - u_wall = β ∂u/∂n. Participants explore its derivation, empirical nature, and underlying intuition, with references to kinetic theory and historical context.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant requests a derivation of the slip length formula from first principles.
  • Another participant suggests that the formula is empirical rather than derived from first principles.
  • A participant expresses difficulty in understanding the intuition behind the formula and seeks guidance.
  • Concerns are raised about the values presented in the Wikipedia article, with a participant noting that other sources describe slip velocity differently, involving the mean free path and shear stress.
  • It is proposed that the slip velocity can be expressed in terms of proportionality constants that relate to the mean free path, but the exact values of these constants remain uncertain.
  • A later reply confirms the empirical nature of the relationship and cites historical experiments by Kundt and Warburg, as well as references to Navier's work from 1823.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the formula is empirical and based on observations, but there is no consensus on its derivation or the exact values of the constants involved.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the lack of detailed derivation for the constants α and β, dependence on definitions of slip velocity, and unresolved mathematical steps related to the relationship between slip length and shear stress.

AnneElizabeth
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Wondering if someone could link me to a derivation of this formula? It's on the Wikipedia page for the no-slip condition.

u - u_wall = β ∂u/∂n

β = slip length
n = coordinate normal to the wall
 
Engineering news on Phys.org
I don't believe it is derived from first principles, but rather is an empirical relationship based on observation.
 
Any chance of some guidance on the intuition behind it? I'm having trouble understanding it.
 
Well I am not entirely sure where the Wikipedia article gets its values, as it is not like anything I have ever seen. Most sources I have seen list slip velocity as being
u_{\mathrm{wall}} \approx \ell \left( \dfrac{\partial u}{\partial n} \right)_{\mathrm{wall}}
where ##u_{\mathrm{wall}}## is the velocity at the wall (slip velocity), ##\ell## is the mean free path, and ##n## is the wall-normal coordinate. This is similar to what your linked Wikipedia article shows except it has a the left side strange. You could certainly rewrite it as
u_{\mathrm{wall}} = \beta \left( \dfrac{\partial u}{\partial n} \right)_{\mathrm{wall}}
where ##\beta## is an unknown proportionality constant that is of the same order of magnitude as ##\ell##. It could also be written as
u_{\mathrm{wall}} = \alpha \ell \left( \dfrac{\partial u}{\partial n} \right)_{\mathrm{wall}}
where ##\alpha## is now the unknown constant whose value is somewhere around (but not necessarily exactly) one. Those form can be derived from the kinetic theory of gases, but the exact value of ##\alpha## or ##\beta## cannot, to my knowledge. The fluids books I have handy don't go through the kinetic theory background of this relation, though apparently it is contained in https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000859FOO/?tag=pfamazon01-20 if you have access to university library and can find it.

Otherwise, really all it is saying is that the slip velocity is proportional to the mean free path and the shear stress at the wall. The proportionality constant is just chosen such that the best fit with reality is achieved.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi just to let you know you were right about it being an empirical relationship based on observation. According to Kennard it was found through a series of experiments conducted in 1875 by Kundt and Warburg, although it does not go into detail. Some papers cite Navier 1823, although I have not been able to find this derivation either. Here is the relevant pages from Kennard's Kinetic Theory of Gases:

Kinetic Theory of Gases Kennard 1939 pg 292.jpg
Kinetic Theory of Gases Kennard 1939 pg 293.jpg
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
9K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K