Surface waves and vorticity in 2D

In summary, the classical free surface profile for the solitary wave for irrotational and incompressible fluids can be described by the classical Korteweg-deVries (KdV) equation. Removing the irrotational aspect of the initial assumptions leads to the vorticity equation in 2D. Combining these two equations yields the full equation that can be approximated to a similar form as the KdV equation. However, there may be a discrepancy when assuming zero viscosity, as vorticity is conserved on a given streamline. There are also solutions to the vorticity equation without viscosity in 2D. Euler's equations do not contain viscosity, but they can contain vorticity.
  • #1
hunt_mat
Homework Helper
1,798
33
TL;DR Summary
How do surface waves change in the presence of vorticity?
The classical free surface profile for the solitary wave for irrotational and incompressible fluids for small amplitude and long wavelength is the classical Korteweg-deVries(KdV) equation given by:[tex]\frac{\partial\eta}{\partial t}+\frac{\partial \eta}{\partial x}+\eta\frac{\partial\eta}{\partial x}+\frac{\partial^{3}\eta}{\partial x^{3}}=0[/tex]
I'm interested in removing the irrrotational aspect of the initial assumptions. The vorticity equation in 2D can be written as:[tex]\frac{D\omega}{Dt}=0,\quad\omega=\frac{\partial v}{\partial x}-\frac{\partial u}{\partial y}[/tex], ``Combining'' these two equations yields:[tex]\frac{D}{Dt}\left(\frac{\partial v}{\partial x}-\frac{\partial u}{\partial y}\right)=0[/tex]
The full equation is:[tex]\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\left(\frac{\partial v}{\partial x}-\frac{\partial u}{\partial y}\right)+u\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left(\frac{\partial v}{\partial x}-\frac{\partial u}{\partial y}\right)+v\frac{\partial}{\partial y}\left(\frac{\partial v}{\partial x}-\frac{\partial u}{\partial y}\right)=0[/tex]
From here I can do the usual approximations to get a similar equation to the KdV? Where am I going wrong here?
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
I've not dived deep into your question but my impression is that vorticity can't propagate without viscosity in the medium. If you effectively are assuming zero viscosity then ... hmmm... I would have to deep dive to speculate further.
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #3
That's not true actually. Euler equations (i.e. Navier-Stokes without viscosity) can also contain viscosity. But other than that I don't have an answer here.
 
  • #4
jambaugh said:
I've not dived deep into your question but my impression is that vorticity can't propagate without viscosity in the medium. If you effectively are assuming zero viscosity then ... hmmm... I would have to deep dive to speculate further.
What you have is that on a given streamline, vorticity is conserved. There are plenty of vorticity solutions in 2D without viscosity.
 
  • #5
Arjan82 said:
That's not true actually. Euler equations (i.e. Navier-Stokes without viscosity) can also contain viscosity. But other than that I don't have an answer here.
How can Euler's equations contain viscosity?
 
  • #6
They don't. But they can contain vorticity (my bad.. I see the typo now...)
 

Similar threads

Back
Top