Let $\textbf{v}\in C^2$ be a velocity field and $D$ the deformation tensor defined as $$d_{ij} = \dfrac{1}{2}\left(\dfrac{\partial v_i}{\partial x_j}+\dfrac{\partial v_j}{\partial x_i}\right).$$

Then $2\nabla\cdot D = \nabla^2\textbf{v}+\nabla(\nabla\cdot\textbf{v})$. The proof goes as follows:

Let $1\leq i \leq 3$ and $d_i = (d_{i1}\ d_{i2} \ d_{i3})$. Then we calculate:

\begin{align} 2\nabla \cdot d_i &= \sum_{j=1}^3\partial_j(\partial_jv_i+\partial_i v_j) \\ &= \sum_{j=1}^3(\partial_j^2v_i + \partial_j\partial_iv_i) \\ &=\nabla^2v_i+ \partial_i\left(\sum_{j=1}^3\partial_jv_i\right)\\ &=\nabla^2v_i + \partial_i(\nabla\cdot v_i). \end{align}

Hence $2\nabla\cdot D = \nabla^2\textbf{v}+\nabla(\nabla\cdot\textbf{v})$.

Can someone verify if this is correct?

Question: how physically realistic is the condition $\textbf{v}\in C^2$?

  • $\begingroup$ Remark: this equality makes the derivation of the (conserved, Newtonian) Navier-Stokes equation rather straight-forward, using $T = -\bar{p}\textbf{1}_3 + 2\mu S$ and $S = D - 1/3(\nabla\cdot\textbf{v})\textbf{1}_3$, with $\bar{p}$ the mechanical pressure. $\endgroup$ Jan 20 '20 at 13:14
  • $\begingroup$ What line in the calculation don't you understand? Also, you would hope $\boldsymbol{v} \in C^{2}$ at least, else after taking Laplacians the equations won't make much sense. $\endgroup$
    – mattos
    Jan 20 '20 at 13:24
  • $\begingroup$ @mattos I understand every line in the calculation, it is $\textit{my}$ calculation, not a book's. I just want someone to verify whether it's correct. And $\textbf{v}\in C^2$ is not necessary for the Laplacian - I would say. It is sufficient though. However, it is a necessary condition for the switching of the partial derivatives from the second to the third equality. $\endgroup$ Jan 20 '20 at 13:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You might have wanted to explain that in your post then. And as far as I can tell, your computation is correct. $\endgroup$
    – mattos
    Jan 20 '20 at 13:32

It's not quite correct, there's a small index error.

\begin{align} 2\nabla \cdot d_i &= \sum_{j=1}^3\partial_j(\partial_jv_i+\partial_i v_j) \\ &= \sum_{j=1}^3(\partial_j^2v_i + \partial_j\partial_iv_i) \quad\text{should have $\partial_j\partial_iv_j$} \\ &=\nabla^2v_i+ \partial_i\left(\sum_{j=1}^3\partial_jv_i\right) \quad\text{should be $\partial_jv_j$ which sums to $\nabla\cdot\mathbf v$}\\ &=\nabla^2v_i + \partial_i(\nabla\cdot v_i). \quad\text{should be $\partial_i(\nabla\cdot\mathbf v)$} \end{align}

This is a good example of a situation where Einstein notation can be cleaner. I use $f_{a,b}$ to represent the derivative of $f_a$ with respect to the basis variable $x_b$, and repeated indices are summed.

$$\begin{align}2\nabla\cdot d_i&=\left(v_{i,j}+v_{j,i}\right)_{,j} \\ &=v_{i,jj}+v_{j,ij} \\ &=\partial_j\partial_jv_i+(v_{j,j})_{,i} \\ &=\nabla^2v_i+(\nabla\cdot\mathbf v)_{,i} \\ &=(\nabla^2\mathbf v+\nabla(\nabla\cdot\mathbf v))_i\end{align}$$

  • $\begingroup$ Ah yes, thank you. $\endgroup$ Jan 23 '20 at 13:46

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.