Solving a Simple ODE from the Navier-Stokes

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peregrine
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Navier-stokes Ode
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around solving a simplified ordinary differential equation (ODE) derived from the Navier-Stokes equations, specifically related to fluid flow. The original poster attempts to find a solution for the velocity component Vz in a radial flow context.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore different methods to solve the ODE, including assuming a power law solution and later substituting derivatives with a new function. Questions arise regarding the physical implications of the solutions obtained, particularly concerning the expected radial profile of the velocity.

Discussion Status

Multiple approaches have been proposed, including the use of exponential functions and hints for substitution. Participants are actively questioning the validity of their methodologies and the physical relevance of the solutions they derive, indicating a productive exploration of the problem.

Contextual Notes

There is an ongoing discussion about the assumptions made in the problem setup, particularly regarding the expected behavior of the flow and the implications of the derived solutions. Participants are also considering boundary conditions that may affect the final form of the solution.

Peregrine
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
I've reduced a portion of the Navier Stokes to solve a flow problem, and am left with the following ODE:

u (\frac {\partial^2 Vz} {\partial^2 r}) + \frac {r} {u}\frac {\partial Vz} {\partial r} = 0

I tried to solve this equation by assuming a power law solution with
Vz = Cr^n

Which yields

n(n-1)r^{n-2} + nr^{n-2} = 0,

Thus n^2 - n + n = 0

Which seems to indicate n^2 =0 => n = 0

So Vz = C. But, I don't think this is what physically happens, Iam expecting a radial profile and not a flat profile, so I'm looking for where I took a wrong turn. Any ideas? Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
HINT: Substitute \frac{\partial V_{z}}{\partial r} by a new function, let's call it f(r,...). Then see what you get.

Daniel.
 
So, using the hint I get:

uf''(r) + (u/r)f'(r) = 0

Assuming an exponential function,
f(r) = e^{nr}
f'(r) = ne^{nr}
f''(r) = n^2e^{nr}

Thus

un^2e^{rn} + (u/r)ne^{rn} = 0
u(n^2+1/rn) = 0
un(n+1/r) = 0
n = 0, -1/r

So:
Vz = Ae^{0} + Be^{-1/r}

Is that the correct methodology? Thanks again.
 
Last edited:
I get the eq for "f"

u\frac{df}{dr}+\frac{r}{u}f=0

with the solution

f(r)=Ce^{-\frac{r^{2}}{2u^{2}}}

and then finally

V(r,\vartheta)=C\int Ce^{-\frac{r^{2}}{2u^{2}}} \ dr + g(\vartheta)

The integral brings in the erf function, while the angle dependence should be determined by boundary conditions.

Daniel.
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K