1

The components of a flow $\mathbf{v=v}(x,y,x,t)$ are given in a Cartesian basis as:

\begin{eqnarray} v_x &=& xy\\ v_y&=& -y^2 \\ v_z &=& zy\\ \end{eqnarray}

What is the acceleration field?

Would I be correct in thinking that in order to solve this I must simply take the material derivative of the velocity field. So that

\begin{eqnarray} a_x&=& v_x\frac{\partial \mathbf{v}}{\partial x}=(xy)y=xy^2\\ a_y&=& v_y\frac{\partial \mathbf{v}}{\partial y}= (-y^2) (x-2y+z)\\ a_z &=& v_z\frac{\partial \mathbf{v}}{\partial z}=(zy)y=zy^2\\ \end{eqnarray}

I feel like this is wrong. Any help would be appreciated, thanks.

  • Wait, your velocity field is time-independent. So your acceleration is zero in Eulerian frame. – Chee Han Apr 06 '18 at 04:31
  • @CheeHan: This seems unnecessary. Velocity field is different from velocity of a single particle. Its being time-independent does not mean that particles following this velocity field has zero acceleration. After all, the advection would contribute to their acceleration. – hypernova Apr 08 '18 at 20:08
  • @hypernova I know that, that's why I said the acceleration field is zero in Eulerian frame specifically. – Chee Han Apr 08 '18 at 22:04
  • @CheeHan: Er... I am sorry, but isn't the Eulerian frame the one that takes the "field" point of view (focusing on specific locations in the space through which the fluid flows), or I didn't get your point correctly? – hypernova Apr 09 '18 at 16:46
  • @hypernova Yes that's what I meant. Like you said, the material derivative is the acceleration of a fluid particle, i.e. the Lagrangian acceleration. I am simply pointing out that the acceleration field is zero if we are standing at a fixed location and observing how the flow changes. Now that I think of it, that comment is nothing but useless in this context. – Chee Han Apr 09 '18 at 17:26
  • @CheeHan: I see. So what you were highlighting is that $\frac{\partial\mathbf{v}}{\partial t}=\mathbf{0}$, or that the flow is steady/stationary, right? I remembered that this is also some kind of acceleration, seen in the Arbitrary Lagrangian-Eulerian methods. It helps a lot therein (a bit involved though :-)). – hypernova Apr 09 '18 at 17:43
  • @hypernova Yes, but I managed to get myself confused again. Is the usual Navier-Stokes equation derived in the Eulerian frame or the Lagrangian frame? I would imagine it's the latter, since we used conservation of mass etc. If so, then what is the acceleration of a fluid particle in Eulerian frame? Is it purely the time derivative or the time plus convective derivative (i.e. material derivative)? – Chee Han Apr 09 '18 at 20:18
  • @CheeHan: No worries. Navier-Stokes' are derived in the Eulerian frame. It does use conservation of mass, but in a tricky way. It focuses on the mass $\int_{\Omega(t)}\rho(t,\mathbf{x}){\rm d}\mathbf{x}$, where $\Omega(t)$ tracks a package of fluids: what is in $\Omega(t)$ at time $t$ are exactly the particles in $\Omega(0)$ at time $0$. So the vanishing of its time derivative gives you the conservation law. Note that in this integral, the integral domain $\Omega(t)$ is also time-dependent. So you need to use Leibniz integral rule (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz_integral_rule). – hypernova Apr 09 '18 at 21:31

1 Answers1

3

You may understand the velocity field $\mathbf{v}:\mathbb{R}^3\times\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}^3$ and the acceleration field $\mathbf{a}:\mathbb{R}^3\times\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}^3$ in the following way.

$\mathbf{v}=\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{x},t)$ is called a velocity field if it reproduces the velocity of the particle that appears at $\mathbf{x}$ at the moment $t$. That is, if $\mathbf{y}=\mathbf{y}(t)$ tracks the motion of a particle, then $$ \frac{\rm d}{{\rm d}t}\mathbf{y}(t)=\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{y}(t),t). $$ In this last formulation, the left-hand-side is obviously the velocity of this particle, while the right-hand-side is how $\mathbf{v}$ reproduces this velocity.

Similarly, $\mathbf{a}=\mathbf{a}(\mathbf{x},t)$ is called an acceleration field if it reproduces the acceleration of the particle that appears at $\mathbf{x}$ at the moment $t$. Still let $\mathbf{y}=\mathbf{y}(t)$ track the motion of a particle, then $$ \frac{\rm d^2}{{\rm d}t^2}\mathbf{y}(t)=\mathbf{a}(\mathbf{y}(t),t). $$

So much about the definitions. Now let us figure out the relation between $\mathbf{a}$ and $\mathbf{v}$. We will use the above two definitions repeatedly. \begin{align} \mathbf{a}(\mathbf{y}(t),t)&=\frac{\rm d^2}{{\rm d}t^2}\mathbf{y}(t)=\frac{\rm d}{{\rm d}t}\left(\frac{\rm d}{{\rm d}t}\mathbf{y}(t)\right)\\ &=\frac{\rm d}{{\rm d}t}\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{y}(t),t)\\ &=\sum_{j=1}^3\frac{\partial\mathbf{v}}{\partial x_j}(\mathbf{y}(t),t)\frac{{\rm d}y_j}{{\rm d}t}(t)+\frac{\partial\mathbf{v}}{\partial t}(\mathbf{y}(t),t)\\ &=\left(\frac{\rm d}{{\rm d}t}\mathbf{y}(t)\cdot\nabla\right)\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{y}(t),t)+\frac{\partial\mathbf{v}}{\partial t}(\mathbf{y}(t),t)\\ &=\left(\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{y}(t),t)\cdot\nabla\right)\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{y}(t),t)+\frac{\partial\mathbf{v}}{\partial t}(\mathbf{y}(t),t). \end{align} Finally, note that $\mathbf{y}(t)$ could be arbitrarily chosen, and that for any chosen $\mathbf{y}(t)$, the above identity must hold. Therefore, we conclude that $$ \mathbf{a}(\mathbf{x},t)=\left(\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{x},t)\cdot\nabla\right)\mathbf{v}(\mathbf{x},t)+\frac{\partial\mathbf{v}}{\partial t}(\mathbf{x},t), $$ or simply put it as $$ \mathbf{a}=\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}+\mathbf{v}\cdot\nabla\right)\mathbf{v}. $$

Obviously, this is nothing but the material derivative. This is not a surprise at all, because the governing Euler equations (or Navier-Stokes equations) are derived based on the second law of Newton, namely $m\mathbf{a}=\mathbf{F}$.

Back to the question. Following your notation $\mathbf{a}=\left(a_x,a_y,a_z\right)$ and $\mathbf{v}=\left(v_x,v_y,v_z\right)$, the formulae $\mathbf{a}=\left(\partial_t+\mathbf{v}\cdot\nabla\right)\mathbf{v}$ mean that \begin{align} a_x&=\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}+v_x\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+v_y\frac{\partial}{\partial y}+v_z\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\right)v_x,\\ a_y&=\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}+v_x\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+v_y\frac{\partial}{\partial y}+v_z\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\right)v_y,\\ a_z&=\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial t}+v_x\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+v_y\frac{\partial}{\partial y}+v_z\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\right)v_z. \end{align} The rest would be straightforward calculations.

Last but not least, as commented in above, even if $\mathbf{v}$ is time-independent, $\mathbf{a}$ could still be non-vanishing. This is, mathematically, due to the contribution of the advection term $\left(\mathbf{v}\cdot\nabla\right)\mathbf{v}$. An intuitive interpretation could be that $\mathbf{v}$ provides an overall picture of the macro scope of a flow. It could reproduce the motion of each particle therein, but this does not mean that it equals the motion of that particle.

hypernova
  • 6,072