Unit Tangent Vector in a Scalar Field

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating unit tangent and normal vectors for a scalar field, specifically focusing on the challenges of expressing the unit tangent vector in terms of the gradient of the scalar field. The context includes theoretical considerations and practical applications in finite element analysis (FEA) software.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes their method for calculating the unit normal vector using the gradient of the scalar field, but expresses difficulty in visualizing and calculating the unit tangent vector.
  • Another participant suggests taking a linear combination of basis vectors and equating the dot product with the unit normal vector to find independent vectors that span the tangent space.
  • A later reply indicates that the initial approach may be flawed due to an assumption of two-dimensionality, arguing that the problem should be considered in three dimensions to avoid limiting the solutions for the tangent vector.
  • The original poster acknowledges trying the suggested method but reports issues with the resulting unit tangent vectors being inconsistent when plotted, raising the possibility that mesh size in the FEA software could be a contributing factor.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the dimensionality of the problem and its implications for calculating the tangent vector. There is no consensus on the best approach to resolve the issues raised, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential limitations related to dimensional assumptions and the influence of mesh size on the results in FEA software. The discussion highlights the complexity of defining tangent vectors in relation to scalar fields in higher dimensions.

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:
\hat{n}=\frac{\nabla \phi}{|\nabla \phi|}​
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 \hat{n} \cdot \hat{T} = 0, writing each in terms of an x- and y-component, and then solving for the x-component and y-component of the unit tangent \hat{T}. My T_x and T_y are written only in terms of unit normal components n_x and n_y (by defining \sqrt{T_x^2 + T_y^2} = 1. 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
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · 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