Steady state in fluid mechanics

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of steady-state flow in fluid mechanics, specifically in relation to the Navier-Stokes equations. Participants explore the implications of steady-state conditions on acceleration terms within these equations, addressing both theoretical and conceptual aspects.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that in steady-state flow, the acceleration term in the Navier-Stokes equation can be canceled, questioning why certain acceleration terms related to distance do not disappear.
  • Another participant counters that the premise is incorrect, asserting that acceleration does not necessarily equal zero in steady-state flow.
  • A participant references a professor's statement about steady-state flow and the removal of the acceleration term, indicating confusion over the reasoning behind this action.
  • It is noted that while the partial derivative of velocity with respect to time is zero in steady-state flow, the convective acceleration is not necessarily zero.
  • One participant points out that an observer moving with the flow can still experience acceleration, highlighting the distinction between different types of acceleration in fluid dynamics.
  • Another participant expresses confusion over the professor's terminology, specifically regarding the distinction between total and partial derivatives in the context of acceleration terms.
  • A later reply acknowledges a misunderstanding regarding the professor's use of partial derivatives, indicating a realization about the nature of the terms discussed.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the treatment of acceleration terms in steady-state flow, with multiple competing views and ongoing confusion regarding the definitions and implications of different types of derivatives.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the definitions of acceleration terms, particularly the distinction between total and partial derivatives, and how these relate to steady-state conditions in fluid mechanics.

Nikitin
Messages
734
Reaction score
27
Hey! When a stream is steady-state, you can cancel the acceleration term in navier-stokes equation, right?

so:

\rho \vec{a} = 0 = - \nabla P + \rho \vec{g} + \mu \nabla ^2 \vec{V}

But there are many terms in the total acceleration which are not dependent on time! The acceleration term in navier stokes can be broken down into https://scontent-b-ams.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/1379985_10201506247874738_1799136895_n.jpg: Why do the acceleration terms with regards to distance (dx, dy, dz) disappear also? This makes no sense to me.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Your premiss is incorrect. the acceleration won't necessarily be zero for a steady state flow.
 
At 02:03 or so the professor says the flow is steady-state and removes the acceleration term.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes the \frac{\partial \vec{V}}{\partial t} term will be zero on account of it is a time dependent quantity and is defined as zero in a steady-state flow. It is an acceleration term and it goes to zero, so in that sense you are right. But the larger "acceleration term" you are trying to zero out is the "convective acceleration" and is not necessarily zero.
 
Even for a steady state flow, an observer moving with the flow velocity along a streamline can be accelerating (Lagrangian frame of reference). His velocity vector is changing with time. The acceleration equation you wrote down (which is the so called Material Derivative of the velocity) determines his acceleration quantitatively.

Chet
 
Okay, but why did the professor in the video in post #3 just say "steady state" and zero-out the
\frac{d\vec{V}}{dt} term then? He said nothing about assuming the convective acceleration is zero..

I'm really confused about this... :(

EDIT: AND OOPS, I see I made a typing mistake in the picture in the OP. The velocity differentiated with regards to Z should be multiplied by w.
 
Because \frac{d\vec{V}}{dt} is not the same as \frac{D\vec{V}}{Dt}. For a steady state flow, all \frac{d}{dt} terms are zero, but not all \frac{D}{Dt} terms are necessarily zero.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
oh crap. I just noticed that the professor wrote the PARTIAL derivative of u with respect to time, NOT the total derivative, as his acceleration term. How careless of me.

When I watched it I thought the professor wrote up the complete navier-stokes equation, but apparently he zeroed all the convective acceleration terms.

Okay, thanks everybody.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K