1
$\begingroup$

So, I was trying to obtain the point form of the conservation of linear momentum equation in integral form, namely:

$\int_{\partial \Omega} \vec{V} \rho \vec{V} \cdot \vec{dS} + \int_{\partial \Omega} p \vec{dS} = 0$

According to the Gauss theorem for a closed surface $S$:

$\iint_S \vec{A} \cdot \vec{dS} = \iiint_V \nabla \cdot \vec{A} dV $

But if I apply that to the above equation I get

$\int_{\partial \Omega} \vec{V} \rho \vec{V} \cdot \vec{dS} = \int_{\Omega} \nabla \cdot (\vec{V} \rho \vec{V}) dV =\\ \quad \int_{\Omega} (\nabla \cdot \vec{V}) \rho \vec{V} dV $

Which can't be right, since for an incompressible flow $\nabla \cdot \vec{V} = 0$.

Isn't the dot product supposed to be commutative? What am I missing?

I apologize for any misuse of mathematical notation, let me know of any mistakes.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ $\vec V\rho\vec V\cdot\overrightarrow{dS}$ is not of the form $\vec A\cdot\overrightarrow{dS}$. The former is a scalar multiple of $\vec V$, specifically $\rho\vec V\cdot\overrightarrow{dS}$ times $\vec V$—a vector—while the latter is the dot product of two vectors—a scalar. The term $\vec V\rho\vec V$ that you pulled out of the first expression is not a vector. Indeed, it’s nonsensical in isolation. $\endgroup$ – amd Mar 28 '18 at 8:10
  • $\begingroup$ @amd It's the dot product of a dyadic product of two vectors, with a vector, resulting in a vector. The term $\vec{V} \rho \vec{V}$ by itself is a 2nd order tensor. You can see that the same quantity is present in the answer below. :) $\endgroup$ – Jason Barmparesos Mar 29 '18 at 9:16
2
$\begingroup$

The correct identity is

$$\nabla\cdot (\rho \mathbf{v} \mathbf{v}) = \rho \mathbf{v} \cdot \nabla\mathbf{v} \, + \, (\nabla \cdot \mathbf{v}) \rho \mathbf{v},$$

where only the second term on the RHS vanishes in incompressible flow.

To check, this should all be consistent with the Navier-Stokes equations for steady flow (minus viscous terms that you have excluded):

$$\rho\mathbf{v} \cdot \nabla \mathbf{v} = - \nabla p,$$

which follows when $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{v} = 0$ from

$$\begin{align}0 &= \int_{\partial \Omega}\rho \mathbf{v} \mathbf{v} \cdot d\mathbf{S} + \int_{\partial \Omega} p \,d\mathbf{S} \\&= \int_{\Omega}\nabla \cdot (\rho \mathbf{v} \mathbf{v}) \, dV + \int_{\Omega} \nabla p \,dV\\ &= \int_{\Omega} \{ \rho \mathbf{v} \cdot \nabla \mathbf{v} + (\nabla \cdot \mathbf{v})\rho \mathbf{v} + \nabla p\} \, dV \\ &= \int_{\Omega} \{ \rho \mathbf{v} \cdot \nabla \mathbf{v} + \nabla p\} \, dV \end{align} $$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, this makes more sense. Thanks! $\endgroup$ – Jason Barmparesos Mar 27 '18 at 23:01

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.