2
$\begingroup$

This is my current understanding:

The no-slip condition at a boundary means that there is no velocity relative to the boundary, this means that the individual components is zero. So we have (in two dimensions) $\vec{u}|_{{\partial\Omega}_{no-slip}} = [u_1 = 0, u_2 = 0]|_{{\partial\Omega}_{no-slip}}$.

However, in some papers I've read, they state that the no-slip condition can be imposed by $\vec{u}\cdot \hat{t} = 0$, where $\hat{t}$ is the unit tangent on the boundary $\partial\Omega_{no-slip}$. But this does not mean that the velocity at $\partial\Omega_{no-slip}$ is zero, it just means that there is no tangential component. Examples of this terminology can be seen in Layton 1999 "Weak imposition of the no-slip condition finite element methods", I can provide more examples if need be. Is this definition incorrect? Then what would you call the condition $\vec{u}\cdot \hat{t} = 0$ on $\partial\Omega$ if it is not called no-slip?

Now for "no-penetration", I know that this can be described as $\vec{u}\cdot\hat{n} = 0$ on $\partial\Omega_{no-pene}$, where $\hat{n}$ is the unit normal to the boundary $\partial\Omega_{no-pene}$, but I've also seen this condition called the "slip condition". I've also seen the slip condition described as $\vec{u}\cdot\hat{n} = g$, and also in two parts as per the attachment (equations 1.1c and 1.1d).slip condition in two parts.

My question is, what is just $\vec{u}\cdot\hat{n} = 0$? - is this no-penetration or slip condition?

Last question, I've read that the slip condition is related to the wall velocity, what is this? (I have a vague idea but would like to solidify my understanding).

Thank you all.

$\endgroup$
0

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

I would say it simply depends on the context, like often in physics. For "usual" fluid mechanics (usual = what I am usually in contact with :-) ), borders are watertight and thus non-penetrative by default, so no-slip condition is u=0 and slip condition is u.n=0. But if you have porosity, or maybe a grid, then you have situations where a flux can go through, but not tangentially. Then it makes sense to distinguish no-slip alone (no tangential component) independently of non-penetrating.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

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