CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > Main CFD Forum

Viscous term in Navier Stokes Equations

Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old   November 16, 2010, 08:31
Default Viscous term in Navier Stokes Equations
  #1
Member
 
Dan
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 41
Rep Power: 6
dandalf is on a distinguished road
Hi

This might seem like a bit of a basic question, but what should the viscous term be,

Some authors give it as,

\frac{1}{Re} \left(\frac{d^2u}{dx^2} +\frac{d^2u}{dy^2}+\frac{d^2u}{dz^2}\right)
(Griebel et al: 1998), (Matyaka: 2003)

Yet others give it as,

\mu\left(\frac{d^2u}{dx^2} +\frac{d^2u}{dy^2}+\frac{d^2u}{dz^2}\right)
(Patankar; 1980)

If

Re=\frac{\rho U d}{\mu}

then surley the two can't be equivelent... or have I missed someting verry big somewhere?

Dan
dandalf is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 16, 2010, 10:08
Default
  #2
Member
 
Ramesh K
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 65
Rep Power: 7
RameshK is on a distinguished road
Send a message via Yahoo to RameshK
Hi

The first one corresponds to non-dimensonalized equations, and the second one in dimensional form
RameshK is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 16, 2010, 11:51
Default
  #3
Member
 
Dan
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 41
Rep Power: 6
dandalf is on a distinguished road
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 non-dimentionalized 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 d for the definition of Re would be hard to define.

Dan
dandalf is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 17, 2010, 08:02
Default
  #4
Member
 
Dan
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 41
Rep Power: 6
dandalf is on a distinguished road
I have also come across a third form of the viscous term

\rho \nu \frac{\delta}{\delta x_j}\left(\frac{\delta U_i}{\delta x_j} + \frac{\delta U_j}{\delta x_i} \right)
("Benchmark Computations of Laminar Flow around a Cylindr", Schafer and Turek; 1996, Notes on numerical dluid mechanics; 52, 547-566)
("Incompressibel Fluid Dynamics", Hunt; 1964)
this seems to relate directly to the visous fluid stress tensor,

\tau_{i,j}=\mu\left(\frac{\delta u_i}{\delta x_j}+\frac{\delta u_j}{\delta x_i}\right)
("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,

\rho \nu \left(\frac{\delta}{\delta x}\left(\frac{\delta u}{\delta x} + \frac{\delta u}{\delta x} \right) + \frac{\delta}{\delta y}\left(\frac{\delta v}{\delta x} + \frac{\delta u}{\delta y}\right)+\frac{\delta}{\delta z}\left(\frac{\delta w}{\delta x} + \frac{\delta u}{\delta z} \right) \right)

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
dandalf is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 17, 2010, 08:16
Default
  #5
Administrator
 
pete's Avatar
 
Peter Jones
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 673
Rep Power: 10
pete is on a distinguished road
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.cfd-online.com/Wiki/Navier-Stokes_equations
pete is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 17, 2010, 09:07
Default
  #6
Member
 
Dan
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 41
Rep Power: 6
dandalf is on a distinguished road
Hi Pete,

I'm still strugelling to see the equivelence the link you posted gave the viscos term for the ith dimension as,

\frac{\delta \tau_{i,j}}{\delta x_j}

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,

\rho \nu \left(\frac{\delta^2 u}{\delta x ^2}+ \frac{\delta^2 v}{\delta x \delta y}+ \frac{\delta^2 w}{\delta x \delta z}\right)

Unless these terms all cancel out to zero..or I'm simpy interpreting the notation incorrectly.
dandalf is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 17, 2010, 09:45
Default
  #7
Member
 
Ramesh K
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Bangalore
Posts: 65
Rep Power: 7
RameshK is on a distinguished road
Send a message via Yahoo to RameshK
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
RameshK is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 17, 2010, 10:21
Default
  #8
Member
 
Dan
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 41
Rep Power: 6
dandalf is on a distinguished road
Tank you Ramesh

\tau_{ij} = \left( \frac{\delta u_i}{\delta x_j}+\frac{\delta u_j}{\delta x_i} - \frac{2}{3}\frac{\delta u_k}{\delta x_k}\delta_{ij}\right)

where presumably \delta_{ij} is the Kronecker delta, given as,

\begin{array}{lr}\delta_{ij}=1 &\ if \ i=j\\ \delta{ij}=0 & otherwise \end{array}
(Childers; 1981)

Making
\tau_{ii}-\frac{2}{3}\mu\left(\frac{\delta u}{\delta x}+\frac{2}{3}\frac{\delta v}{\delta y}+\frac{2}{3}\frac{\delta w}{\delta z}\right)

this will add the aditional terms,
-\frac{2\mu}{3}\left(\frac{\delta^2 u}{\delta x^2}+\frac{\delta^2 v}{\delta x \delta y}+\frac{\delta^2 u}{\delta x \delta z}\right)

Reducing the overall discrepency with the formulations in my original post to,

\frac{\rho\nu}{3}\left(-2\frac{\delta^2 u}{\delta x^2}+ \frac{\delta^2 v}{\delta x \delta y}+ \frac{\delta^2 w}{\delta x \delta z}\right)

Last edited by dandalf; November 18, 2010 at 10:56. Reason: correction
dandalf is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
4th order Runge-Kutte & 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


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:50.