Take the 2-minute tour ×
Physics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for active researchers, academics and students of physics. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I am reading a paper, and see someone decompose a divergence operator as follows, could someone judge and see if it is correct?

$$\nabla \cdot {\bf{v}} = \left( {{\bf{n}} \cdot \nabla } \right){v_n} + {\nabla _\parallel } \cdot {{\bf{v}}_t}$$

$\bf{v}$ is velocity vector field, and $n$ means normal, $t$ is tangent component.

And I do not understand why ${\bf{v}}_t$ is a vector and $v_n$ is not?

share|improve this question
    
This would be more appropriate for math forum, but someone might want to try to answer here as well –  Pygmalion May 25 '12 at 19:25
    
Comment to the question(v2): It seems the paper is implicitly assuming that the unit normal ${\bf n}$ is a constant vector field. If ${\bf n}$ is non-constant, there will be more terms on the right-hand side. –  Qmechanic May 25 '12 at 19:50
    
More terms? Can you elaborate? I dont think $\bf{n}$ is constant, it is surface normal unit vector, and this is a CFD paper, the surface is a bluff body, it is flow around a bluff body. –  Daniel May 25 '12 at 19:55
    
Well, I was referring to the case where ${\bf n}$ is a non-constant bulk vector field. We were not informed that ${\bf n}$ only lives on a surface. –  Qmechanic May 25 '12 at 20:05
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 0 down vote accepted

This might help. Divergence operator is by definition

$$\nabla = \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \vec{i} + \frac{\partial}{\partial y} \vec{j} + \frac{\partial}{\partial z} \vec{k}.$$

and velocity can be written as

$$\vec{v} = v_x \vec{i} + v_y \vec{j} + v_z \vec{k},$$

therefore

$$\nabla \cdot \vec{v} = (\frac{\partial}{\partial x} \vec{i} + \frac{\partial}{\partial y} \vec{j}) \cdot (v_x \vec{i} + v_y \vec{j}) + \frac{\partial}{\partial z} \vec{k} \cdot v_z \vec{k} = \nabla_{xy} \cdot \vec{v}_{xy} + \frac{\partial }{\partial z} v_z.$$

Now, let's just put Cartesian coordinate system in a way that $z$ is along normal component...

share|improve this answer
    
No.1 Why did you use $\nabla \vec{v}$ instead of $\nabla \cdot \vec{v}$? –  Daniel May 25 '12 at 19:47
    
No.2 ${{\vec v}_{xy}}$ just has two component, is it okay to call it vector? And then use a bold print? –  Daniel May 25 '12 at 19:49
    
Yes, it is scalar product, so dot is appropriate. I'll correct. It is OK and it must be called vector. The result must be scalar. –  Pygmalion May 25 '12 at 20:07
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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