# Quesions Simple

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

 August 30, 2000, 04:01 Quesions Simple #1 ram Guest   Posts: n/a Hello, I have some quires, which appear to be simple, but yet unanswered. 1. If the fluid motion equations weren't based on the assumption that normal and shearing stresses are a linear function of rate of deformation, could one obtain a true description of the motion of a fluid by any other method, if any? 2. Even when we don't make any assumption on pressure drop, Reynolds number and viscosity, why is the solution obtained in Hagen – Poiseuille theory of pipe flow valid for only laminar flow? 3. Some authors say that there is conservation of momentum and some use the term momentum theorem to derive the NS equations based on Newton's Second Law of motion. Why is this confusion? Is the momentum really conserved? If not, what is the true fact? 4. When a fluid is at rest, does it develop a thermodynamic pressure or a hydrostatic pressure? If so, how? regards ram

 August 30, 2000, 06:16 Re: Quesions Simple #2 Chidu Guest   Posts: n/a Hi Ram, I can go into some of the questions you have raised, but I suggest you read GK Batchelors, Introduction to Fluid dynamics. It has discussions on almost all these questions (maybe not the H-P flow) For the HP flow, we assume a single length scale and obtain a single Re! Which will probably give you the laminar solution. Turbulence has infinite length scales and is approached through growing disturbances and non-linear interactions between these disturbances. It is surely true that in the absence of any disturbances a parabolic profile is surely a solution to the NS equations even for arbitrarily large Reynolds numbers. regards, chidu...

 August 31, 2000, 06:50 Re: Quesions Simple #3 Daniel Jaeggi Guest   Posts: n/a H-P flow is only valid for laminar flow beacuse of the assumptions you have made about variation in shear stress in the y-direction. The only reason you can perform the integration necessary to obtain a solution is because you substitute d(tau)/dy with tau = miu*dv/dy. This substitution is only valid for laminar flow. In turbulent flow, extra terms are generated based on the variation of velocity rendering the integral unsolvable.

 September 3, 2000, 02:17 Thanks #4 ram Guest   Posts: n/a Thank you

 September 4, 2000, 02:11 Re: Quesions Simple #5 Dr. H.K.Narahari Guest   Posts: n/a When Linearity assumtions wrt to deformations are not valid, then the fluid is called Non-Newtonian and we need to have a different set of equations. Needless to say, they are even more sticky than the familier N-S equations. Modelling flow of Blood in arteries for example falls in this domain. There are researchers our there who work in this area, unfortunately I don't have any references at present. I will pass on any info I get in future

 Thread Tools Display Modes Linear Mode

 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 OffTrackbacks are On Pingbacks are On Refbacks are On Forum Rules

 Similar Threads Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post zouchu Main CFD Forum 1 January 20, 2014 18:02 renyun0511 OpenFOAM Programming & Development 0 November 4, 2010 02:38 fakor Main CFD Forum 1 August 30, 2010 11:21 preibie OpenFOAM Paraview & paraFoam 2 June 29, 2009 05:15 benedikt flurl Main CFD Forum 2 April 14, 2005 06:54

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:11.