Unfamiliar formulation of Stokes Problem

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter the.drizzle
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Stokes
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a specific formulation of the Stokes problem as presented in the escript python FEM software package. Participants are exploring the mathematical representation of the Stokes flow equations, particularly focusing on the relationship between different formulations and the implications of viscosity in the context of incompressible fluid dynamics.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion over the formulation of the Stokes problem, noting that it includes a term that does not resemble the typical Laplacian form they are accustomed to.
  • Another participant suggests looking at a specific section of the user manual for clarification.
  • A participant clarifies that their confusion lies in understanding how the divergence of the viscosity term is equivalent to the Laplacian of velocity, questioning the assumptions about the adjoint operator.
  • A further elaboration is provided on the relationship between the viscous stress tensor and the rate of strain tensor, including a reference to Navier-Poisson's Law and its implications for deriving the Laplacian of velocity.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion reflects a lack of consensus on the equivalence of the different formulations of the Stokes problem. Participants are exploring various interpretations and mathematical relationships without reaching a definitive agreement.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the formulation includes assumptions about incompressibility and the treatment of viscosity, which may affect the interpretation of the equations. There are also references to specific mathematical properties and identities that are not fully resolved in the discussion.

the.drizzle
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Hello, I'm trying out the escript python FEM software package which is so far rather impressive, if for no other reason than the developers have included a Stokes Flow solver. The problem I'm having, however, is that they have formulated the problem in a manner I have not encountered before, nor can seem to make it "work" in the manner I would expect it to. In particular, we have from from section 6.1 of the users manual:

We want to calculate the velocity field v and pressure p of an incompressible fluid. They are given as the solution of the Stokes problem
[tex]-\left( \eta \left( v_{i,j} + v_{j,i} \right) \right)_{,j} + p_{,i} = f_i + \sigma_{ij,j}[/tex]
where [itex]f_i[/itex] defines an internal force and [itex]\sigma_{ij,j}[/itex] is an initial stress. The viscosity may weakly depend on pressure and velocity. If relevant we will use the notation [itex]\eta\left(v,p\right)[/itex]to express this dependency.

My basic problem is that I have not encountered what would normally be the Laplacian on the LHS of the above statement. That is, I would typically expect Stokes problem to be stated as
[tex]\Delta v - \nabla p = f[/tex]
which, components aside, does not seem to be an equivalent statement. Due to my application, the inclusion of the initial condition [itex]\sigma_{ij,j}[/itex] is unimportant, and conservation of mass ([itex]\nabla\cdot v=0[/itex]) is assumed in both cases.

So, can anyone tell me what I'm doing wrong, or where I might find a derivation of the quoted formulation so that I can actually apply it?

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
See the explanation in section 1.5.
 
Thanks, but I suppose I should clarify...

The problem I'm having is not one of indices vs. operator, what I'm failing to see is how
[tex]\nabla\cdot\left(\eta\left(\nabla v + \nabla^T v \right)\right)[/tex]
is equivalent (in some sense?) to
[tex]\eta\Delta v[/tex]
That is, I'm assuming that they mean that [itex]\nabla^T[/itex] denotes the adjoint to [itex]\nabla[/itex], but even then that doesn't seem to add up...

Cheers!
 
the.drizzle said:
Thanks, but I suppose I should clarify...

The problem I'm having is not one of indices vs. operator, what I'm failing to see is how
[tex]\nabla\cdot\left(\eta\left(\nabla v + \nabla^T v \right)\right)[/tex]
is equivalent (in some sense?) to
[tex]\eta\Delta v[/tex]
That is, I'm assuming that they mean that [itex]\nabla^T[/itex] denotes the adjoint to [itex]\nabla[/itex], but even then that doesn't seem to add up...

Cheers!

[itex]\nabla^Tv[/itex] denotes the TRANSPOSE of [itex]\nabla v[/itex]

If you sum them both and divide by 2, you get a symmetrical tensor called the "rate of stain tensor", let's call it ε

For an incompressilble flow ([itex]\nabla · v = 0[/itex]) the law that relates the "viscous stress tensor σ" (I think this one is also called deviatoric stress tensor) to the "rate of strain tensor ε" is:

σ= 2η·ε

Now, in the equation of conservation of momentum, σ doesn't appear as such, but through its divergence. If you calculate its divergence (or just look it up, Navier-Poisson's Law), you get to the conclusion:

[itex]\nabla · σ = - \nabla \times (η\nabla \times v)[/itex]

Since η is constant you can get it out of the curl expression. Applying this property of operators you finally get to the laplacian of v

[tex]\nabla \times \nabla \times \vec{v} = \nabla (\nabla \cdot \vec{v}) - \nabla^2 \vec{v}[/tex]

Hope I could clarify!
 
Brilliant, thank you!

:-)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
954
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K