Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
A general procedure to solve the Navier-Stokes equation The Navier-Stokes Equations Equa-
tion (2.29) is a set of four coupled non-linear second order partial differential equations. Even if
the boundary conditions are known, obtaining a solution is not a straight forward mathematical
problem. For most engineering applications, at least if the problem can be simplified, it is possible
to reduce the complexity in the equations at the very beginning. This is achieved by making some
assumptions, and idealisations. Good approximations come with experience and practice. But there
is a general sequence of steps that may be followed to simplify the problem.
3. Validate the guess by substituting it in the continuity equation. Remember there are no physical
parameters appearing in the continuity equation which could alter the balance. It could be
possible to obtain additional information about the velocity field. This approach was used in
the differential analysis of the boundary layer.
4. Substitute the guesses in the momentum equation and simplify the differentials. For many
problems, the concentrating on pressure terms usually leads to further simplifications.
Substituting in the continuity equation we get uy = v = constant. From the no-slip condition, we
have that the velocity has to vanish at the boundaries. This implies v = 0 through out. The NSE in
Cartesian coordinates reduce to
∂p d2 u
0=− �µ 2 (2.132)
∂x dy
∂p
0=− (2.133)
∂y
∂p d2 w
0=− �µ 2 (2.134)
∂z dy
Note we have used complete derivative for the velocities, and partial for the pressure. Inspecting the
pressure terms, we find that the pressure is only a function of �x� z). In Equation (2.132), ∂p
∂x is not a
function of y where as the viscous term is, and the viscous term is not a function of x whereas the
pressure term is. This implies each of them must be equal to the same constant. A similar argument
applies for the z-momentum equation. This gives us the solutions (along with the no-slip conditions)
� � �2
H 2 Δp
�
2y
u= − 1 − (2.135)
8µ L H
� �2
H 2 Δp
� �
2y
w= − 1 − (2.136)
8µ W H
Since there is no net-flow in the z-direction because of the presence of the walls, this implies the
pressure gradient is zero, or from Equation (2.136), w = 0. Equation (2.135), v = w = 0 is the solution
we obtain. This is consistent with our assumptions.
τ = µ�∇ v � ∇ vT )
(2.143)
� �
∂vθ 1 ∂vr vθ
τrθ = µ � −
∂r r ∂θ r
The stress at r = R is therefore
τrθ �r = R) = −2 µ ω (2.144)
The differential force on an element swept by dθ across the length is τrθ L R dθ and the corresponding
torque is τrθ L R2 dθ. Integrating over the angle, we get an expression for the total torque
G = −4 π L R2 µ ω
σ1 = σ2 or σ�1) �2)
i j = σi j (2.145)
We can also equate the normal and tangential component of the forces on either side. For the simplest
case of a stationary fluids with a curved interface this reduces to the normal stress balance:
2γ
p�1) = p�2) � (2.146)
R
at the interface, where γ is the surface tension and R is the radius of curvature. When two fluids flow
past each other, with a flat interface, the tangential force arises due to the viscous stress. A stress
balance gives
∂u1 ∂u2
τ�1) �2)
yx = τyx or µ1 = µ2 (2.147)
∂y ∂y
In the case of air-water interface, we rewrite this as
∂uw µa ∂ua
= (2.148)
∂y µw ∂y
In most cases the air region is unbounded (like in the case of a jet of liquid in air) therefore the velocity
gradient is also negligibly small. Even if the region of air is bounded by walls present in comparable
length scales, the viscosity of water is about 50 times that of air, making the RHS negligibly small for
the velocity gradient in water. This leads to a general condition that there is no shear stress acting
on the surface, or it is a stress-free boundary; the condition is also known as an inviscid boundary
condition. This is a very useful simplification in treating flows of air water interface. The stress free
condition leads to the conclusion that in the cases of jets the velocity profile in the liquid is flat.
�Rd
− dr 2 π r ρ vz � Vw π �R2c − R2w ) = 0 (2.149)
Rw
where Vw is the velocity the wire is pulled with. In order to find Rc we need to know the velocity
profile vz �r) inside the die annulus. As before, we consider a fully developed velocity profile, as this
makes the equations simpler (Note that when we positioned the CV boundary in the die, we did
not require it to have a fully developed velocity profile, i.e., the Equation (2.149) is valid even if the
velocity is not fully developed, but the expression is easier to evaluate for fully developed flow). The
NSE reduce to p = constant and � � ��
1 ∂ ∂vz
0=µ r (2.150)
r ∂r ∂r
With the no-slip boundary conditions this gives
ln r/Rd
vz �r) = Vw (2.151)
ln Rw /Rd
Substituting in Equation (2.149) we get
� 2 1/2
R − R2w
Rc = d (2.152)
2 ln Rd /Rw
and the force required to pull the die is obtained by integrating the surface force on the wire over the
length of the die
2 π µ Vw L
Fw = (2.153)
ln Rw /Rd
assuming the same the fully developed velocity profile to be dominating the entire length. This also
ignores any radial variations in the velocity from the die exit to the regime of constant wire thickness.
η = K �γ̇)n−1 (2.155)
where K is a empirical constant called as the consistency factor. For a Couette flow the shear stress is
given by
τ xy = η γ̇ = K γ̇n (2.156)
This satisfies the continuity equation. To solve for the velocities, we have to go back to the general
momentum balance, not that for Newtonian fluids. We look up the cylindrical coordinate equations
∂p
0=−
∂r
∂p
0=−
∂θ
∂p 1 d
0=− � �rτrz )
∂z r dr
ΔP
τrz = r (2.160)
2L
Note that even for non-Newtonian fluids the stress is still a linear function of the distance from the
walls. It is only the velocity profiles that will be different. Inserting the expression for the shear stress
�� ��n−1
dvz dvz
τrz = K ��� ��� (2.161)
dr dr
and solving for the velocity and using the usual boundary conditions we get
� n�1 � ��1/n � � r ��n�1)/n �
n R ΔP
vz = − 1− (2.162)
n � 1 2K 2K L R
For shear thinning fluids, n < 1 (n is usually in the range 0.3 < n < 1), the profile is flatter towards the
centre in comparison with a parabolic velocity profile for Newtonian fluids.
Physical interpretation of the velocity profile The stress distribution is identical in the cases of
Newtonian and non-Newtonian fluids. For a given pressure drop, the non-Newtonian fluid experi-
ences an lower viscosity, therefore we can expect a higher flow rate, implying the average velocity
�vz � would be higher. This can be seen from Figure 2.17, where the area under the curve for the
non-Newtonian fluid is higher than that for the Newtonian fluid.
0.8
0.6
ylabel
0.4
0.2
n = 1, Newtonian
n = 0.3
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
xlabel
Figure 2.17: Fully developed velocity profiles for a power law fluid with n = 0.3 compared to that of
a Newtonian fluid.