Unit Tangent Vector in a Scalar Field

auditt241
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hello,
I am attempting to calculate unit normal and tangent vectors for a scalar field I have, Φ(x,y). For my unit normal, I simply used:
[itex]\hat{n}=\frac{\nabla \phi}{|\nabla \phi|}[/itex]​
However, I'm struggling with using this approach to calculate the unit tangent. I need to express it in terms of the gradient of the scalar field but I am having a hard time visualizing this.
Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Take a linear combination of basis vectors with unknown coefficients. Equate its dot product with ## \hat n ## to zero. You should be able to find two independent vectors as solutions. Those will span the tangent space to each point.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Geofleur
Shyan said:
Take a linear combination of basis vectors with unknown coefficients. Equate its dot product with ## \hat n ## to zero. You should be able to find two independent vectors as solutions. Those will span the tangent space to each point.
Thanks for your response! I think I tried this: I used [itex]\hat{n} \cdot \hat{T} = 0[/itex], writing each in terms of an x- and y-component, and then solving for the x-component and y-component of the unit tangent [itex]\hat{T}[/itex]. My [itex]T_x[/itex] and [itex]T_y[/itex] are written only in terms of unit normal components [itex]n_x[/itex] and [itex]n_y[/itex] (by defining [itex]\sqrt{T_x^2 + T_y^2} = 1[/itex]. When I do this however, and plot my unit tensor field, I don't get clean, tangential vectors. Some are tangential, but they can be a bit of a mess. I am doing this in FEA software, could some of my issues be due to my mesh size? Or am I going about it the wrong way?
 
One obvious problem I see, is that you're assuming the problem is two dimensional, Its not! You should work in three dimensions. Otherwise ##\hat n\cdot \vec T=0## and ##|\vec T|=1## will completely determine the components and you'll get only one vector as a solution which we know isn't right.
In fact you should've known this from the start because you are considering a function of two variables which can only be a surface in three dimensions.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K