A Surface waves and vorticity in 2D

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the classical Korteweg-deVries (KdV) equation, which describes solitary waves in irrotational, incompressible fluids. A participant expresses interest in exploring the implications of removing the irrotational assumption and introduces the vorticity equation in 2D. There is a debate about the propagation of vorticity, with one viewpoint suggesting that it cannot occur without viscosity, while others argue that vorticity can exist in inviscid flows. The conversation also touches on the relationship between Euler's equations and viscosity, clarifying that while they do not contain viscosity, they can describe vorticity. The complexities of these fluid dynamics concepts highlight the need for deeper exploration into the assumptions made in the original equations.
hunt_mat
Homework Helper
Messages
1,816
Reaction score
33
TL;DR
How do surface waves change in the presence of vorticity?
The classical free surface profile for the solitary wave for irrotational and incompressible fluids for small amplitude and long wavelength is the classical Korteweg-deVries(KdV) equation given by:\frac{\partial\eta}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial \eta}{\partial x}+\eta\frac{\partial\eta}{\partial x}+\frac{\partial^{3}\eta}{\partial x^{3}}=0
I'm interested in removing the irrrotational aspect of the initial assumptions. The vorticity equation in 2D can be written as:\frac{D\omega}{Dt}=0,\quad\omega=\frac{\partial v}{\partial x}-\frac{\partial u}{\partial y}, ``Combining'' these two equations yields:\frac{D}{Dt}\left(\frac{\partial v}{\partial x}-\frac{\partial u}{\partial y}\right)=0
The full equation is:\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left(\frac{\partial v}{\partial x}-\frac{\partial u}{\partial y}\right)+u\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left(\frac{\partial v}{\partial x}-\frac{\partial u}{\partial y}\right)+v\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\left(\frac{\partial v}{\partial x}-\frac{\partial u}{\partial y}\right)=0
From here I can do the usual approximations to get a similar equation to the KdV? Where am I going wrong here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I've not dived deep into your question but my impression is that vorticity can't propagate without viscosity in the medium. If you effectively are assuming zero viscosity then ... hmmm... I would have to deep dive to speculate further.
 
That's not true actually. Euler equations (i.e. Navier-Stokes without viscosity) can also contain viscosity. But other than that I don't have an answer here.
 
jambaugh said:
I've not dived deep into your question but my impression is that vorticity can't propagate without viscosity in the medium. If you effectively are assuming zero viscosity then ... hmmm... I would have to deep dive to speculate further.
What you have is that on a given streamline, vorticity is conserved. There are plenty of vorticity solutions in 2D without viscosity.
 
Arjan82 said:
That's not true actually. Euler equations (i.e. Navier-Stokes without viscosity) can also contain viscosity. But other than that I don't have an answer here.
How can Euler's equations contain viscosity?
 
They don't. But they can contain vorticity (my bad.. I see the typo now...)
 
Hello, I'm joining this forum to ask two questions which have nagged me for some time. I am in no way trolling. They both are presumed obvious, yet don't make sense to me. Nobody will explain their positions, which is...uh...aka science. I also have a thread for the other question. Yes, I'm questioning the most elementary physics question we're given in this world. The classic elevator in motion question: A person is standing on a scale in an elevator that is in constant motion...