4
$\begingroup$

Suppose I have a tensor

\begin{gather} \stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{A} = \begin{bmatrix} a_{11}(\vec{r}) & a_{12}(\vec{r}) & a_{13}(\vec{r})\\ a_{21}(\vec{r}) & a_{22}(\vec{r}) & a_{23}(\vec{r})\\ a_{31}(\vec{r}) & a_{32}(\vec{r}) & a_{33}(\vec{r}) \end{bmatrix} \end{gather}

where $\vec{r} = x_{1} \hat{e}_1 + x_{2} \hat{e}_2 + x_{3} \hat{e}_3$

The divergence of this tensor in general curvilinear coordinates is given by

\begin{gather} \nabla^{c} \cdot \stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{A} = \left[ \frac{\partial A_{ij}}{\partial x^{k}} - \Gamma_{ki}^{l} A_{lj} - \Gamma_{kj}^{l} A_{il} \right] g^{ik} \vec{b}^{j}\\ \vec{b}_{i} = \frac{\partial_{x_{i}} \vec{r}}{ \left| \partial_{x_{i}} \vec{r} \right| } \end{gather}

Using Mathematica, I computed the volume integral of the curvilinear divergence for cylindrical coordinates, giving \begin{gather} \iiint \nabla^{c} \cdot \stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{A} dV = \begin{bmatrix} r \int a_{11} d\theta dz + \int a_{12} dr dz + \int r a_{13} dr d\theta - \int a_{22} dr d\theta dz\\ r \int a_{21} d\theta dz + \int a_{22} dr dz + \int r a_{23} dr d\theta + \int a_{12} dr d\theta dz\\ r \int a_{31} d\theta dz + \int a_{32} dr dz + \int r a_{33} dr d\theta \end{bmatrix} \end{gather}

This does not match the traditional Divergence theorem I'm familiar with, or at least it doesn't appear so to me because of the extra triple integral terms $\vec{C}$:

\begin{gather} \iiint \nabla^{c} \cdot \stackrel{\leftrightarrow}{A} dV = \oint A_{ij} n_j \vec{b}_i dS + \vec{C}\\ \vec{C} \neq 0 \end{gather}

What is the correct transformation from the volume integral of the curvilinear divergence to some surface integral?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ The equation you wrote in cylindrical coordinates is not reasonable as the LHS is a vector and the RHS is a scalar! $\endgroup$ – H. R. Mar 10 '16 at 9:30
  • $\begingroup$ @H.R. The intention is that the surface integral describes the i'th component of the resulting vector. I've added an indication by multiplying by $\vec{b}_i$, though I've almost certainly gotten the covariance/contravariance wrong (first time I'm really trying to figure out what the difference between these two are). I'm working on a more fundamental proof of the divergence theorem in curvilinear coordinates to see if I can't figure out why the answer I got from Mathematica is/isn't correct. For now, though, I need to sleep :P $\endgroup$ – helloworld922 Mar 10 '16 at 10:05
  • $\begingroup$ The problem is that you cannot take ${\bf{g}}^i$ inside or outside the integral. and hence you cannot easily obtain the co-variant or contra-variant component by multiplying ${\bf{g}}_i$ or ${\bf{g}}^i$. Take a look at the equation $(6)$ below in my answer. $\endgroup$ – H. R. Mar 10 '16 at 11:07
2
$\begingroup$

Let us first consider the invariant form of classical divergence theorem in vector analysis

$$\int_{\Omega}\nabla \cdot {\bf{v}} dV = \int_{\partial \Omega} {\bf{n}} \cdot {\bf{v}}dS \tag{1}$$

For the sake of memorizing, they say that the gradient operator turns into the the unit normal vector. You can choose your vector ${\bf{v}}$ to be

$${\bf{v}} = {\bf{A}} \cdot {\bf{c}} \tag{2}$$

where ${\bf{A}}$ is a second order tensor and ${\bf{c}}$ is a constant vector. Then using $(1)$ and $(2)$ you can prove that

$$\int_{\Omega} \nabla \cdot {\bf{A}} dV = \int_{\partial \Omega} {\bf{n}} \cdot {\bf{A}} dS \tag{3}$$

Note that $(1)$ is a scalar equation while $(2)$ is a vector equation.

Now, you can use $(3)$ to write the divergence theorem in a curve-linear coordinate. So the next step is to compute the divergence of a second order tensor

$$\begin{align} \nabla \cdot {\bf{A}} &= {\bf{g}}^i \partial_{i} \cdot (A_{jk} {\bf{g}}^j \otimes {\bf{g}}^k) \\ &= {\bf{g}}^i \cdot \partial_{i} (A_{jk} {\bf{g}}^j \otimes {\bf{g}}^k) \\ &= \partial_i A_{jk} ({\bf{g}}^i \cdot {\bf{g}}^j) {\bf{g}}^k + A_{jk} ({\bf{g}}^i \cdot \partial_i{\bf{g}}^j) {\bf{g}}^k + A_{jk} ({\bf{g}}^i \cdot {\bf{g}}^j) \partial_i {\bf{g}}^k \\ &= \partial_i A_{jk} g^{ij} {\bf{g}}^k - \Gamma_{il}^{j} A_{jk} ({\bf{g}}^i \cdot {\bf{g}}^l) {\bf{g}}^k - \Gamma_{il}^{k} A_{jk} g^{ij} {\bf{g}}^l \\ &= \partial_i A_{jk} g^{ij} {\bf{g}}^k - \Gamma_{il}^{j} A_{jk} g^{il} {\bf{g}}^k - \Gamma_{il}^{k} A_{jk} g^{ij} {\bf{g}}^l \\ &= \partial_i A_{jk} g^{ij} {\bf{g}}^k - \Gamma_{ij}^{l} A_{lk} g^{ij} {\bf{g}}^k - \Gamma_{ik}^{l} A_{jl} g^{ij} {\bf{g}}^k \\ &= \left[ \partial_i A_{jk} - \Gamma_{ij}^{l} A_{lk} - \Gamma_{ik}^{l} A_{jl} \right] g^{ij} {\bf{g}}^k \\ &= \left[ \partial_i A_{kj} - \Gamma_{ik}^{l} A_{lj} - \Gamma_{ij}^{l} A_{kl} \right] g^{ik} {\bf{g}}^j \end{align} \tag{4}$$

and also we have

$$\begin{align} {\bf{n}} \cdot {\bf{A}} &= n_i {\bf{g}}^i \cdot ( A_{kj} {\bf{g}}^k \otimes {\bf{g}}^j ) \\ &= n_i A_{jk} ( {\bf{g}}^i \cdot {\bf{g}}^k ) {\bf{g}}^j \\ &= n_i A_{jk} g^{ik} {\bf{g}}^j \end{align} \tag{5}$$

and so the final result is

$$\boxed{\int_{\Omega} \left[ \partial_i A_{kj} - \Gamma_{ik}^{l} A_{lj} - \Gamma_{ij}^{l} A_{kl} \right] g^{ik} {\bf{g}}^j dV = \int_{\partial \Omega} n_{i} A_{jk} g^{ik} {\bf{g}}^{j} dS} \tag{6}$$

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The problem is that I'm not getting the invariant form by plugging in the full cylindrical divergence into the volume integral; I get some extra volume integral terms on the right hand side. $\endgroup$ – helloworld922 Mar 9 '16 at 12:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @helloworld922: Sorry! :) I don't get you! $\endgroup$ – H. R. Mar 9 '16 at 15:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @helloworld922: I don't know whether there is typo in wiki formulas or not so I computed the whole thing here from scratch. :) $\endgroup$ – H. R. Mar 9 '16 at 15:42

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.