Why incompressible flow does not satisfy energy equation?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the relationship between incompressible flow and the energy equation, particularly why incompressible flow is said to not require the energy equation while compressible flow does. Participants explore the implications of this distinction and its connection to fluid dynamics, including the effects of temperature and viscosity.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express confusion over why incompressible flow does not require the energy equation while compressible flow does, questioning the accuracy of lecture notes.
  • Others argue that incompressible flows do satisfy the energy equation but can often ignore it in practical applications unless temperature effects are significant.
  • It is noted that significant viscous heating or external heat transfer can couple the energy balance to the motion equations, even in incompressible fluids.
  • Some participants propose a classification of flow regimes into incompressible, variable-density, and compressible, with some disagreement on the definitions and boundaries of these categories.
  • There is a discussion about the distinction between viscous dissipation and compressibility, with some participants emphasizing that they are separate phenomena.
  • The effect of temperature variations on viscosity and its implications for fluid dynamics is raised, with some suggesting that this can lead to variable-density flows even if the flow is treated as incompressible.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the definitions of incompressible and variable-density flows, nor on the implications of temperature and viscosity on the energy equation. Multiple competing views remain regarding the treatment of these concepts in fluid dynamics.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge that different authors may treat the concepts of incompressibility and variable density differently, leading to potential ambiguities in definitions and applications. The discussion reflects varying interpretations of how energy equations relate to different flow regimes.

aerograce
Messages
63
Reaction score
1
I encountered this statement on my lecture notes today,
upload_2017-4-18_21-22-30.png

I don't understand why compressible flow needs to have another constraint of energy equation while incompressible flow only satisfies continuity and momentum equation. And how is this energy equation related to the speed of sound?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
aerograce said:
I encountered this statement on my lecture notes today,
View attachment 195483
I don't understand why compressible flow needs to have another constraint of energy equation while incompressible flow only satisfies continuity and momentum equation. And how is this energy equation related to the speed of sound?
I don't know what the speaker is referring to. Incompressible flow of a Newtonian Fluid certainly does satisfy the thermal energy balance equation as well as the mechanical energy balance equation.
 
My guess is that whoever made the slides was simply being inexact with their language. Incompressible flows absolutely do satisfy the energy equation. However, for an incompressible flow, the energy equation is entirely decoupled from the mass and momentum conservation equations, so you can solve the entire velocity and pressure fields without ever touching the energy equation. That's one of the major advantages of treating a flow as incompressible. So, for an incompressible flow, while it does still satisfy the energy equation, we can entirely ignore it unless we specifically care about the temperature field.
 
boneh3ad said:
My guess is that whoever made the slides was simply being inexact with their language. Incompressible flows absolutely do satisfy the energy equation. However, for an incompressible flow, the energy equation is entirely decoupled from the mass and momentum conservation equations, so you can solve the entire velocity and pressure fields without ever touching the energy equation. That's one of the major advantages of treating a flow as incompressible. So, for an incompressible flow, while it does still satisfy the energy equation, we can entirely ignore it unless we specifically care about the temperature field.
Yes. As you say, if there is significant viscous heating and/or direct external heat transfer to the fluid, the viscosity of the fluid can change, and this then couples to the equation of motion. So, under these circumstances, the energy balance equation can have a significant effect on the fluid mechanics, even for an incompressible fluid.
 
Chestermiller said:
Yes. As you say, if there is significant viscous heating and/or direct external heat transfer to the fluid, the viscosity of the fluid can change, and this then couples to the equation of motion. So, under these circumstances, the energy balance equation can have a significant effect on the fluid mechanics, even for an incompressible fluid.

There was a fair bit of discussion about this a few months back and whether this truly qualifies as being incompressible or not. Different authors will treat the question differently. Personally, for exactly this reason, I'd argue for there being essentially three flow regimes: incompressible, variable-density, and compressible (or I guess four regimes if you split compressible into subsonic and supersonic). Not everyone agrees with me, though.
 
boneh3ad said:
There was a fair bit of discussion about this a few months back and whether this truly qualifies as being incompressible or not. Different authors will treat the question differently. Personally, for exactly this reason, I'd argue for there being essentially three flow regimes: incompressible, variable-density, and compressible (or I guess four regimes if you split compressible into subsonic and supersonic). Not everyone agrees with me, though.
I'm confused. Viscous dissipation is a completely different phenomenon than compressibility/incompressibility (which I'm sure you know).
 
Chestermiller said:
I'm confused. Viscous dissipation is a completely different phenomenon than compressibility/incompressibility (which I'm sure you know).

Yes, I was referring to your comment about how if you have large temperature gradients (for example) then the equations can remain coupled. That's a situation where the kinematics can remain incompressible in a certain sense but the density can still vary in space (or viscosity). Often those are called "variable-density flows" to distinguish them from truly incompressible flows. Depending on your definition of "incompressible", they may or may not still fall within that umbrella.
 
boneh3ad said:
Yes, I was referring to your comment about how if you have large temperature gradients (for example) then the equations can remain coupled. That's a situation where the kinematics can remain incompressible in a certain sense but the density can still vary in space (or viscosity). Often those are called "variable-density flows" to distinguish them from truly incompressible flows. Depending on your definition of "incompressible", they may or may not still fall within that umbrella.
I wasn't referring to the effect of temperature on density. I was referring to the effect of temperature variations on viscosity variations, which, in turn, couples to the fluid dynamics.
 
Chestermiller said:
I wasn't referring to the effect of temperature on density. I was referring to the effect of temperature variations on viscosity variations, which, in turn, couples to the fluid dynamics.

Right, but the end result is effectively the same. It's not a situation I confront often, as it would be much more likely to be meaningful in liquids (whereas variable-density is a lot more meaningful in gases), but the effects on the governing equations ought to be quite similar.
 
  • #10
boneh3ad said:
Right, but the end result is effectively the same. It's not a situation I confront often, as it would be much more likely to be meaningful in liquids (whereas variable-density is a lot more meaningful in gases), but the effects on the governing equations ought to be quite similar.
Yeah. The overwhelming bulk of my experience has been with liquids.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
20
Views
7K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
6K
  • · Replies 73 ·
3
Replies
73
Views
17K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
9K