
[Sponsors] 
November 16, 2010, 08:31 
Viscous term in Navier Stokes Equations

#1 
Member
Dan
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 41
Rep Power: 7 

November 16, 2010, 10:08 

#2 
Member

Hi
The first one corresponds to nondimensonalized equations, and the second one in dimensional form 

November 16, 2010, 11:51 

#3 
Member
Dan
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 41
Rep Power: 7 
I presume then if I am creating a finite volume solver for unsteady flows over complex geometries, I need the dimensional form.
Yet many authours seem to be usind the nondimentionalized formulation. Come to think of it did strike me as odd when in ("Numerical Simulation in Fluid Dynamics,A practical introduction", Griebel et al; 1998) The authour seemed to be sugesting the use of the first form over complex geometries, where a for the definition of Re would be hard to define. Dan 

November 17, 2010, 08:02 

#4 
Member
Dan
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 41
Rep Power: 7 
I have also come across a third form of the viscous term
("Benchmark Computations of Laminar Flow around a Cylindr", Schafer and Turek; 1996, Notes on numerical dluid mechanics; 52, 547566) ("Incompressibel Fluid Dynamics", Hunt; 1964) this seems to relate directly to the visous fluid stress tensor, ("Introduction to computational fluid dynamics", Date; 2005) as far as I can tell this adds another three elements to the viscous term, so for a three dimensional flow the term would be, the connection to the stress tensor seems logical, however I cand seem to find a direct derivation. Inconsistancy between available literature sources seems to be sending me in circles, Can anyone help me figure out which formulation I need? Dan 

November 17, 2010, 08:16 

#5 
Administrator
Peter Jones
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 684
Rep Power: 10 
The same equation can be written in many ways. CFD Wiki provides a more general dimensional form, which is valid for compressible flows (some of your examples assume incompressible flow):
http://www.cfdonline.com/Wiki/NavierStokes_equations 

November 17, 2010, 09:07 

#6 
Member
Dan
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 41
Rep Power: 7 
Hi Pete,
I'm still strugelling to see the equivelence the link you posted gave the viscos term for the ith dimension as, which agrees with the formulation in my last post, yet how can this be equivelent to the formulations in my original post, if the entire rest of the equation of momentum matches up, except for the three added terms, Unless these terms all cancel out to zero..or I'm simpy interpreting the notation incorrectly. 

November 17, 2010, 09:45 

#7 
Member

Hi
your \tau_{ij} term has a missing term. According to stokes hypothesis for a Newtonian fluid \tau_{ij} = \left( \frac{\partial u_i}{\partial x_j}+\frac{\partial u_j}{\partial x_i}  \frac{2}{3}\frac{\partial u_i}{\partial x_j}\delta_{ij} and apply divergence to this quantity 

November 17, 2010, 10:21 

#8 
Member
Dan
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 41
Rep Power: 7 
Tank you Ramesh
where presumably is the Kronecker delta, given as, (Childers; 1981) Making this will add the aditional terms, Reducing the overall discrepency with the formulations in my original post to, Last edited by dandalf; November 18, 2010 at 10:56. Reason: correction 

Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
4th order RungeKutte & uncoupled method Navier Stokes equations  misabel  Main CFD Forum  0  February 10, 2010 07:06 
Navier Stokes equations in rotation frame..?  vinayender  Main CFD Forum  2  December 1, 2009 01:12 
LBM Vs navier stokes equations in turbulent fluid flow modeling.  sharad_shevate  Main CFD Forum  0  August 3, 2009 01:25 
Incompressible Navier stokes with source term  mayur  FLUENT  0  August 6, 2004 06:07 
Presure range of the Navier Stokes Equations  Dr. Tsimento  Main CFD Forum  7  May 23, 2001 10:12 