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

rotational and inviscid

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

Like Tree5Likes

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   July 7, 2000, 14:46
Default rotational and inviscid
  #1
Mike
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Does anyone please tell me if inviscid flow can be rotational or not? What is the nature of rotational flow?
  Reply With Quote

Old   July 7, 2000, 15:09
Default Re: rotational and inviscid
  #2
Adrin Gharakhani
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Yes. Inviscid flow can be rotational. Rotational flow may be characterized by vorticity, which is the curl of velocity. A simple example is a vortex ring (like a cigarette smoke puff but without the diffusion process)

Check out fundamental fluid dynamic books.

It is important NOT to confuse potential flow with inviscid flow (which may be the source of your confusion). While potential flow satisfies the equation of motion of inviscid flow dynamics, the reverse is not necessarily true. That is, an inviscid flow is not necessarily potential (the former may contain vorticity, which induces rotational and not potential flow)

Adrin Gharakhani
  Reply With Quote

Old   July 7, 2000, 16:16
Default Re: rotational and inviscid
  #3
Kalyan
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Inviscid flow can be rotational. As pointed out in an earlier reply, inviscid flows with vortices are good examples.

It might help to know that vorticity is conserved in inviscid flows, i.e., Euler equations are incapable of vorticity production. So in an inviscid flow computation, vorticity (in the form of point vortices or vortex blobs or continuous fields) can only come in as a part of the inflow and can not be produced or destroyed by the Euler equations.

Note also that the vortex rings can never be formed without viscosity though they can exist in a purely inviscid fluid.
  Reply With Quote

Old   July 7, 2000, 16:26
Default Re: rotational and inviscid
  #4
Adrin Gharakhani
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
> Euler equations are incapable of vorticity production. So in an inviscid flow computation, vorticity (in the form of point vortices or vortex blobs or continuous fields) can only come in as a part of the inflow and can not be produced or destroyed by the Euler equations.

This is true _only_ for the incompressible (and constant density) case. Example: baroclinic vorticity generation (without solid boundaries).

Adrin Gharakhani
  Reply With Quote

Old   July 7, 2000, 21:33
Default Re: rotational and inviscid
  #5
John C. Chien
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
(1). It is not a good idea to mix these two terms at the same time. (2). At the begining, you have this equation called the Navier-Stokes equations, which represent the conservation of mass, momentum and energy. It contains viscosity terms. (3). Now, if you take the curl operation on the momentum equations, you will get this so-called "vorticity" equation. Remember that, the vorticity equation is derived from the momentum equation, so it has viscosity terms in it also. (4). If you set the viscosity terms to zero, you are going to get this mathematical equation, called "inviscid" equations, whether it is the inviscid momentum equations or the inviscid vorticity equation. (5). The inviscid momentum equation is generally called "Euler Equation" in contrast to the Navier-Stokes equations which has viscosity terms. (6). In the vorticity equation(derived from the Navier-Stokes equations), in addition to the viscosity terms, there are convection terms, stretching terms, production terms due to expansion, non-uniform density, and general body force. (7). So, even though you drop the viscosity terms, there are still many other terms in the vorticity equation, including the production terms. (8). So far, we have touched only the "inviscid" vs "viscous" forms of equation. (9). The rest of that is easy. The only time when the flow is "irrotational" is when the vorticity is everywhere zero. If there are still many terms in the vorticity equation (after dropping the viscosity terms), then you know that vorticity is normally non-zero. So, most of the time, it is rotational even without viscosity terms. (10). In old days, the inviscid equation was still very difficult to solve. So, the Euler equation was further simplified (second time) by setting the vorticity to zero (it is called "irrotational"). As a result, one can express the velocity in terms of the velocity potential and derive the so-called "potential flow"equation. (11). So, "potential flow" is "irrotational flow". And for the incompressible flow, the equation is the Laplace equation. The Laplace equation was the main focus in the 19th century. (12). Remember that, Euler equation and Laplace equation are simplified equations derived from the Navier-Stokes equations.(by setting the viscosity to zero, and then by setting the vorticity to zero, respectively)
Shayor likes this.
  Reply With Quote

Old   July 14, 2000, 16:31
Default Re: rotational and inviscid
  #6
clifford bradford
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
curved shocks can be a source of vorticity in an inviscid flow. i think there may be other potential sources but I can't remember what the others might be.
  Reply With Quote

Old   July 20, 2000, 13:39
Default Re: rotational and inviscid
  #7
Hua Zhou
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
where the velocity varies, where there exist vortex; where the entropy increases, where creates vortex.
  Reply With Quote

Old   April 20, 2011, 03:25
Default
  #8
Senior Member
 
Nick
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 126
Rep Power: 15
Nick R is on a distinguished road
Many thanks guys you explained things that confused me for awhile. Especial thanks to Adrian, John and Kalyan
Nick R is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   September 22, 2022, 06:37
Default
  #9
New Member
 
Wencan Wu
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 2
Rep Power: 0
silkworm is on a distinguished road
I dont agree with you.
After a normal shock, velocity changes while no vortex exists.
In laminar boundary layer, there entropy increases but no vortex generates.
silkworm is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 2, 2023, 20:22
Default stretching term of vorticity equation
  #10
New Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 20
Rep Power: 3
ichamail is on a distinguished road
The vorticity equation derived from momentum equation for an inviscid incompressible flow is pressented below

\frac{d \vec{\zeta} }{dt} = \left( \vec{\zeta} \cdot \nabla \right) \vec{V}, where \vec{\zeta} = \nabla \times \vec{V}

I read in several textbooks that, from this equation we come to the conclusion that if \vec{\zeta}(t_0) = 0, then \frac{d \vec{\zeta} }{dt} = 0 for t>t_0

Also in many of theses textbooks is written that this equation agrees with Kelvin's circulation theorem, which states that, if an inviscid fluid is initially irrotational then it remains irrotational at all subsequent times.

I can't understand, at least from a mathematical point of view, how that conclusion is made
ichamail is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 2, 2023, 20:30
Default
  #11
Senior Member
 
Lucky
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 5,631
Rep Power: 65
LuckyTran has a spectacular aura aboutLuckyTran has a spectacular aura aboutLuckyTran has a spectacular aura about
Mathematically... starting with

\frac{d \vec{\zeta} }{dt} = \left( \vec{\zeta} \cdot \nabla \right) \vec{V}


put \vec{\zeta}= 0 into the RHS


Then you have \frac{d \vec{\zeta} }{dt} = 0


Hence if the vorticity was zero, it remains zero.



That's all there is to it
LuckyTran is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 2, 2023, 20:34
Default
  #12
New Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 20
Rep Power: 3
ichamail is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyTran View Post
Mathematically... starting with

\frac{d \vec{\zeta} }{dt} = \left( \vec{\zeta} \cdot \nabla \right) \vec{V}


put \vec{\zeta}= 0 into the RHS


Then you have \frac{d \vec{\zeta} }{dt} = 0


That's all there is to it
Now I feel dumb
Thank you
ichamail is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 3, 2023, 02:14
Default
  #13
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,737
Rep Power: 71
FMDenaro has a spectacular aura aboutFMDenaro has a spectacular aura aboutFMDenaro has a spectacular aura about
Note that d/dt is the lagrangian derivative, formally that means the vorticity along the path-line.
ichamail likes this.
FMDenaro is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 3, 2023, 07:20
Default
  #14
New Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 20
Rep Power: 3
ichamail is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyTran View Post
Mathematically... starting with

\frac{d \vec{\zeta} }{dt} = \left( \vec{\zeta} \cdot \nabla \right) \vec{V}


put \vec{\zeta}= 0 into the RHS


Then you have \frac{d \vec{\zeta} }{dt} = 0


Hence if the vorticity was zero, it remains zero.



That's all there is to it

Revisiting your answer, wouldn't setting \vec{\zeta}= 0
lead to \frac{d \vec{0} }{dt} = \left( \vec{0} \cdot \nabla \right) \vec{V} \implies 0 = 0 ?

I mean, I would understand if the above equation was formulated as
\frac{d \vec{\zeta} }{dt} = \left( \vec{\zeta_0} \cdot \nabla \right) \vec{V}
where \vec{\zeta_0}= \vec{\zeta}(x, y, z, t_0)

that setting \vec{\zeta_0}= \vec{\zeta}(x, y, z, t_0) = 0 would lead to \frac{d \vec{\zeta} }{dt} = 0

But it's not formulated like that. Is there something too obvious that I'm missing?
ichamail is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 3, 2023, 09:31
Default
  #15
Senior Member
 
Lucky
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 5,631
Rep Power: 65
LuckyTran has a spectacular aura aboutLuckyTran has a spectacular aura aboutLuckyTran has a spectacular aura about
Setting x=0 does not automatically imply anything about dx/dt

For example, if x=1, it does not imply that d(1)/dt is anything

Knowing f(a) doesn't tell you anything about f'(a)
LuckyTran is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 3, 2023, 11:01
Default
  #16
New Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 20
Rep Power: 3
ichamail is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyTran View Post
Setting x=0 does not automatically imply anything about dx/dt

For example, if x=1, it does not imply that d(1)/dt is anything

Knowing f(a) doesn't tell you anything about f'(a)
It actually does. that if x=1 then \frac{dx}{dt} = \frac{d1}{dt} = 0. The only thing I can think of is that if \frac{dx}{dt} = x is an ordinary diff equation of position then x = 0 is a solution to this ode and so it satisfies the differential equation \frac{dx}{dt} - x  = \frac{d0}{dt} - 0 = 0.
This type of solution means that if the system is at rest then it stays at rest.

Can this be an analogy to the pde equation of vorticity?
ichamail is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 3, 2023, 13:28
Default
  #17
agd
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 349
Rep Power: 18
agd is on a distinguished road
You have an initial value problem, with zero as the initial condition. The solution then is a constant, and that constant is the initial value zero. It really is that simple.
agd is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 3, 2023, 13:30
Default
  #18
Senior Member
 
Filippo Maria Denaro
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6,737
Rep Power: 71
FMDenaro has a spectacular aura aboutFMDenaro has a spectacular aura aboutFMDenaro has a spectacular aura about
Quote:
Originally Posted by ichamail View Post
It actually does. that if x=1 then \frac{dx}{dt} = \frac{d1}{dt} = 0. The only thing I can think of is that if \frac{dx}{dt} = x is an ordinary diff equation of position then x = 0 is a solution to this ode and so it satisfies the differential equation \frac{dx}{dt} - x  = \frac{d0}{dt} - 0 = 0.
This type of solution means that if the system is at rest then it stays at rest.

Can this be an analogy to the pde equation of vorticity?



You have to consider t=0, that is the equation writes



dz/dt|t=0 = (z.grad v)|t=0
FMDenaro is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 3, 2023, 15:39
Default
  #19
Senior Member
 
Lucky
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 5,631
Rep Power: 65
LuckyTran has a spectacular aura aboutLuckyTran has a spectacular aura aboutLuckyTran has a spectacular aura about
When I say put vorticity=0 or x=1, I mean at one instance, not for all time.

For example, a new born child is born at a height (in US) of 20 inches. Eventually the baby grows into an adult and becomes much taller than 20 inches.

d(baby height)/dt is not zero (for all time).

Again.... f(a)=0 does not imply that f(t)=0 for all t. It simply means that f at t=a is 0. And it also does not imply anything about f'(t) = anything.

So yes, you are missing something very obvious, again and again about general mathematical notation.

Then you have the vorticity transport equation:

\frac{d \vec{\zeta} }{dt} = \left( \vec{\zeta} \cdot \nabla \right) \vec{V}

This equation is a general equation which relates the change of vorticity to velocity/vorticity field. Only from this equation can you evaluate what is \frac{d \vec{\zeta} }{dt}
Without this equation, you know nothing about the change in vorticity.
LuckyTran is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 3, 2023, 16:03
Default
  #20
New Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2022
Posts: 20
Rep Power: 3
ichamail is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyTran View Post
When I say put vorticity=0 or x=1, I mean at one instance, not for all time.

For example, a new born child is born at a height (in US) of 20 inches. Eventually the baby grows into an adult and becomes much taller than 20 inches.

d(baby height)/dt is not zero (for all time).

Again.... f(a)=0 does not imply that f(t)=0 for all t. It simply means that f at t=a is 0. And it also does not imply anything about f'(t) = anything.

So yes, you are missing something very obvious, again and again about general mathematical notation.

Then you have the vorticity transport equation:

\frac{d \vec{\zeta} }{dt} = \left( \vec{\zeta} \cdot \nabla \right) \vec{V}

This equation is a general equation which relates the change of vorticity to velocity/vorticity field. Only from this equation can you evaluate what is \frac{d \vec{\zeta} }{dt}
Without this equation, you know nothing about the change in vorticity.

Let me use some different notation just in case we implie the same thing but we "lost in translation"

\frac{d \vec{\zeta} }{dt}(t) = \left( \vec{\zeta}(t) \cdot \nabla \right) \vec{V}(t)

If we know that \vec{\zeta}(t_0) = 0 then, all I can say is

\frac{d \vec{\zeta} }{dt}(t_0) = \left( \vec{\zeta}(t_0) \cdot \nabla \right) \vec{V}(t_0) = 0

This is all I can understand. If you are telling me that there is something more than that, I'm sorry but maybe I need to go back to the basics, and the come back again to ask for help
ichamail is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
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 Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
interFoam inviscid and rotational pablodecastillo OpenFOAM Running, Solving & CFD 7 June 16, 2012 09:15
Convergence for inviscid flow over sylinder Rjakk Main CFD Forum 2 March 21, 2007 11:53
Inviscid flow Atit Koonsrisuk CFX 12 January 2, 2003 13:40
Separation by Euler equations Jitendra Main CFD Forum 9 July 5, 2000 15:58


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 23:03.