1
$\begingroup$

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?

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ This would be more appropriate for math forum, but someone might want to try to answer here as well $\endgroup$
    – Pygmalion
    May 25, 2012 at 19:25
  • $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$
    – Qmechanic
    May 25, 2012 at 19:50
  • $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$
    – Daniel
    May 25, 2012 at 19:55
  • $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$
    – Qmechanic
    May 25, 2012 at 20:05

1 Answer 1

0
$\begingroup$

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...

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ No.1 Why did you use $\nabla \vec{v}$ instead of $\nabla \cdot \vec{v}$? $\endgroup$
    – Daniel
    May 25, 2012 at 19:47
  • $\begingroup$ No.2 ${{\vec v}_{xy}}$ just has two component, is it okay to call it vector? And then use a bold print? $\endgroup$
    – Daniel
    May 25, 2012 at 19:49
  • $\begingroup$ 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. $\endgroup$
    – Pygmalion
    May 25, 2012 at 20:07

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.