ENAS 789 Spring 2010

Problem Set 1 Solutions

1. Pope, problem A.8 (p. 653). Solution: (a) = Cijk Bijk An un (b) vj = Cijk Bik + Aij uj (c) Tk = Cijk Bijn Anm um (d) Fpqr = Cijkp Bijk Aqr u u (e) Vijk = Cijk + Bijk u + Aij Ak 2. Show that ij is an isotropic second-rank tensor; that is, ij transforms as a tensor and ij = ij for any coordinate systems E and E related by rotations or reections. i e j . Therefore, we have Solution: In general, ij = e i e j ij = e m ) (Cnj e n ) = (Cmi e = Cmi Cnj mn , and so ij transforms as a tensor. We can also write ij = Cmi Cnj mn = Cmi Cni = ij , and so ij is an isotropic tensor whose components are independent of coordinate system. It turns out that ij is in fact the only second-rank isotropic tensor. 3. Consider two second-rank tensors Aij and Bij . Suppose that Aij = Aji and Bij = Bji ; then Aij is called symmetric and Bij is antisymmetric. Show that Aij Bij = 0. Note that this is a general result regardless of tensor rank: the inner product of a symmetric and an antisymmetric tensor vanishes. Solution: Aij Bij = Aji Bij = Aji Bji = Aij Bij =0 (Aij is symmetric) (Bij is antisymmetric) (Relabeling dummy indices) (Only scalar that is its own negative!)

4. Consider two coordinate systems E and E that are related by a reection through each axis; i = e i for i = 1, 2, 3. Use these two coordinate systems to show that ijk is not a that is, e third-rank tensor. Solution: For this transformation, the direction cosines are i e j = e i (e j ) = ij . Cij = e

Suppose that

ijk

were a third-rank tensor. We would then expect

ijk

= C i Cmj Cnk

mn

= li mj nk

mn

ijk .

But we should have ijk = ijk , since the ordering of i, j, k has not changed under the reection: Recall that the denition of ijk is if i, j, k is a cyclic permutation of 1, 2, 3 1 1 if i, j, k is an anticyclic permutation of 1, 2, 3 = ijk 0 if any index is repeated Nothing in this denition says anything about a reference frame; only the ordering of the indices matters. We thus have a contradiction. The only assumption we have made is that Therefore, ijk must not be a tensor, since it transforms dierently.
ijk

is a tensor.

With a little more work (noticing that we can write the determinant of matrix as det(A) = r ijk A1i A2j A3k and that the determinant of a direction-cosine matrix is (1) where r is the number of coordinate reections), you can show the correct transformation rule for the Levi-Civita symbol is ijk = det(C )C i Cmj Cnk mn . This is the general transformation rule for pseudotensors. 5. Pope, problem 2.8 (p. 22). Solution: (a) = i i = jki i j uk = 0, since i j is a symmetric second-rank tensor that is being contracted with the antisymmetric ijk . (b) = (c) U=
ijk i ( mj ijk i j

= 0, for the same reason as in part (a).

Um ) =

kij

mj i

Um

= (k im km i ) i Um = k i Ui i i Uk = ( U) 2 U, using the epsilon-delta rule. (d) U = Um = (k im km i ) Ui Um 1 = Ui k Ui Ui i Uk = k (Ui Ui ) Ui i Uk 2 1 = (U U) U U. 2

ijk Ui mj

6. (a) For incompressible ow (i.e., U = 0), show that the pressure satises a Poisson equation, where the Laplacian of the pressure is given by a source term.

(b) As discussed in class, this time-independent Poisson equation implies that the pressure is nonlocal, instantaneously adjusting everywhere to changes in the velocity eld. Clearly, such behavior is unphysical. Make a physical argument for why the pressure does not truly vary instantaneously. Hint: one of the assumptions going into the derivation of the Poisson equation is an approximation! Solution: (a) To derive the Poisson equation for the pressure, we take the divergence of the momentum equation: 1 i (t Ui + Uj j Ui ) = i i p + j j Ui . Using the product rule, we have 1 t (i Ui ) + (i Uj )(j Ui ) + Uj j (i Ui ) = i i p + j j (i Ui ). Since we are assuming incompressibility, i Ui = 0. Rearranging, we then have i i p = (i Uj )(j Ui ), as desired. (b) From the above derivation, it is clear that the time dependence of the pressure equation only vanishes for incompressible ow; if there is even a little compressibility, the pressure will not adjust instantaneously. True incompressibility, however, is only an approximation; in reality, there will always be a tiny bit of compressibility (even as Ma 0), which saves us. Compare this situation to the dierence between the NavierStokes and the Euler equations! 7. Pope, problem 2.12 (p. 24). Solution: To re-express the vorticity equation, we must focus on the vortex-stretching term U. Writing this in tensor notation, we have k k Ui = k (Sik + ki ), where we have expanded the gradient. Writing the rate-of-rotation tensor in terms of the vorticity, the second term becomes 1 kij j k = 0, 2 since j k is symmetric and kij is antisymmetric. We are therefore left with only the rateof-strain part, so that we can write the vorticity equation as k ki = Dt i = k k i + Sik k . Physically, this result tells us that the vorticity is intensied only by the strain rate, and not by the rotation of the uid. The source term in the Poisson equation for the pressure can be written as (j Ui )(iUj ) = (Sji + ji )(Sij + ij )) = Sij Sij ij ij , where the two cross terms vanish since they are inner products between symmetric and antisymmetric tensors.

8. Pope, problem 2.14 (p. 29). Solution: (a) Not invariant. The velocity changes under Galilean boosts, and so the streamlines must also change. (b) Invariant. The vorticity does not change a Galilean boost, since U = (U + V) for constant V. (c) Not invariant. Since the velocity changes, under a Galilean boost the helicity will pick up an extra V component. (d) Invariant. The vorticity does not change under a Galilean boost. (e) Invariant. By denition, material lines, surfaces, and volumes move along Lagrangian trajectories (with the uid elements). Fluid-element trajectories are invariant under Galilean transformations (since they simply trace out where the elements went), and so material quantities are as well. (f) Invariant. The scalar eld itself does not change under Galilean boosts, so t and i are invariant. And like the material quantities above, Dt is the derivative along a Lagrangian trajectory, which is invariant under Galilean boosts. 9. Show that the NavierStokes equations are invariant under the scaling symmetry t, x, u 1h t, x, h u, where is a scalar constant. What are the allowed values of h for the NavierStokes equations? What about for the Euler equations (where = 0)? Solution: Let us dene = 1h t t = x x = h u u Lets consider all the terms of the NavierStokes equations in turn. We can write u h u u = 1h = 2h1 t t t 2h1 u = u u u 2 h 2 u = 2 u without too much trouble. The pressure term is a little more subtle. Consider the Poisson equation for the pressure: j 2p u i u ui uj 2p = = 2h2 = 2h2 . x i x i x j x i xj xi xi xi So that means that the pressure gradient term scales as p = 2h1 p.

So the time derivative, convective derivative, and pressure gradient terms all scale as 2h1 , while the viscous term scales as h2 . That means that as long as h = 1, the equation is invariant under this scaling transformation. But, note that if we consider the Euler equations, where the viscous term is absent, h can take any value and the equation is still invariant. So the Euler equations are invariant under an innite number of scaling transformations!