1
$\begingroup$

I am looking for some clarification on the incompressible, 2D, steady-state, cartesian Navier-Stokes equations for flow through a straight cylinder (flow aligned with the $x$-axis, so $u_y =0$), with negligible gravity:

$$ \rho u_{x}\frac{\partial u_{x}}{\partial x} = - \frac{\partial p}{\partial x} + \mu\left(\frac{\partial^{2}u_{x}}{\partial x^{2}} + \frac{\partial^{2}u_{x}}{\partial y^{2}}\right) \\ \frac{\partial p}{\partial y}=0. $$

Just to be clear, I'm not assuming fully-developed flow, so that $\partial u_x/\partial x\neq 0$.
Also, I am aware that the cylindrical Navier-Stokes equations would be more suitable in this case, but as far as I can tell, using the cartesian Navier-Stokes equations is still a valid formulation.

With that out of the way, upon looking at the cartesian Continuity equation under these same assumptions, the equation simplifies to:

$$ \frac{\partial u_x}{\partial x}=0 $$

Which seems to contradict the non-fully-developed flow assumption from the Navier-Stokes simplification.
I can't wrap my head around how Continuity implies that the flow is fully-developed, yet I never made such an assumption.

My first thoughts are that the Continuity simplification is actually a 1D simplification, not a 2D simplification like my original assumptions. However, since $u_y$ must be zero (because the flow is unidirectional), I can't see how the simplified Continuity equation would be any different from what I have written.

I then thought that this had something to do with the Continuity equation being in differential form so that it's only considering an infinitesimal point. I know that upon considering a control volume (i.e. converting Continuity to integral form), you can arrive at the steady-state conservation of mass equation (indicating that velocity in the $x$-direction does change):

$$ u_1 A_1 = u_2 A_2. $$

Though, this still doesn't really solve my problem, since the cross-sectional area of the cylinder is constant along its length. If anything, this equation just tells me that the flow is developed at every instantaneous point (i.e. it remains fully-developed even under cross-sectional changes).

This is probably the closest I feel to an actual explanation, but the problem still persists that Continuity says that $\partial u_x/\partial x=0$, meaning nothing is stopping me from substituting this into the Navier-Stokes equations, which will ultimately contradict my underlying assumptions.

The only other explanation I can seem to think of is that Continuity explains the quantity changes of the fluid in a system, whereas the Navier-Stokes equations explain the force changes (per unit volume) of the fluid in a system, so they are measuring different qualities of the fluid.

However, I'm not convinced that this has anything to do with the apparent contradiction, as I have seen many cases where a Continuity-derived expression has been directly substituted into the Navier-Stokes equations (e.g. in the derivation of the Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes equations).

I'd really appreciate an explanation of what my misunderstanding is here.

I apologise if this has been asked somewhere else - I really struggled to find another question like this.
Feel free to point me in the right direction if you know where/if this has been asked before.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

0
$\begingroup$

If the flow is not fully-developed, radial component of the velocity is not zero ($u_y\neq0$ and $u_z\neq0$). Intuitively, a piece of liquid near the wall of the tube slows down as $x$ increases, so another piece of liquid that moves behind it at a higher velocity will overtake the first one. To do it, it shifts closer to the center of the tube.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, that is correct. However, I am not using the assumption of fully-developed flow to infer that $u_{y}=0$, I am using the assumption of 2D flow aligned with the $x$-axis aligned with the cylinder to infer that $u_y=0$. As far as I can tell, this assumption is completely valid (since I am just assuming all of the fluid travels in the same direction and that the flow is laminar). $\endgroup$
    – Sam_Ress
    Mar 29 at 23:46
  • $\begingroup$ If a fluid travels in the same direction and the flow is stationary, then the velocity is constant. Otherwise it would contradict the conservation of mass: consider for example a small cylinder of radius $R$ with axis parallel to the axis of the tube. Liquid flows only through the bases of the cylinder: the flow through the left base is $u_x(x_1,y,z)\pi R^2$, the flow through the right base is $u_x(x_2,y,z)\pi R^2$. The flows must be equal (or the mass wouldn't be conserved), so $u_x(x_1,y,z)= u_x(x_2,y,z)$ $\endgroup$
    – atarasenko
    Mar 30 at 11:21
  • $\begingroup$ I see. So what you're saying is that if fully-developed flow is not assumed under 2D conditions, then fundamentally, both $u_y\neq 0$ and $u_x \neq 0$, meaning the flow layers cannot align with a single axis. Upon thinking about this more, I can see why, and understand your initial comment. Thank you for your clarification. Perhaps another query I have is: say I wanted to assume that $u_y$ was small compared to $u_x$. Is it viable to assume that $u_y\approx 0$ under non-fully-developed conditions? $\endgroup$
    – Sam_Ress
    Mar 31 at 22:28

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.