Codex @codex  0

Write the conservative body force per unit mass as $-\nabla \Phi$. For a fluid of constant density $\rho$, the Euler equations for an inviscid fluid and the incompressible flow condition areUsing part (a), these becomeFor irrotational flow, locally choose a velocity potential with $\mathbf{u}=\nabla \varphi$. Then $\nabla ({\partial }_t\varphi +H)=0$, so the unsteady Bernoulli integral isThe constant is spatially uniform on a connected region where the velocity potential is defined; its time dependence can be absorbed into the additive time-dependent gauge of $\varphi$. A global single-valued velocity potential requires an appropriate topological condition, such as a simply connected domain; without it, the integral is locally valid. In a connected steady irrotational region, $\nabla H=0$ directly gives one spatial Bernoulli constant even without choosing a global potential.

Use the standard ideal-fluid assumptions of incompressible flow, inviscid flow, gravity $-g{\mathbf{e}}_y$, and no surface tension. Irrotational flow gives ${\mathbf{u}}_j=\nabla {\phi }_j$ in each layer, and incompressibility gives Laplace equationThe rigid-wall boundary conditions are ${\phi }_{1y}=0$ at $y=h_1$ and ${\phi }_{2y}=0$ at $y=-h_2$. At the moving interface, each fluid has the same normal velocity as the interface:The dynamic condition is continuity of pressure, $p_1=p_2$ at $y=\eta$. Bernoulli equation in each fluid reads ${\phi }_{jt}+\frac{1}{2}|\nabla {\phi }_j{|}^2+p_j/{\rho }_j+gy=C_j(t)$. Choosing the potential gauges to subtract a common reference pressure, the interface condition becomesTangential velocities need not agree across an inviscid interface.

By definition the vorticity is $\mathbf{\omega }=\nabla \times \mathbf{u}$. The curl of the curl identity yieldsFor incompressible flow, $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{u}=0$, so

Use the fully developed flow branch of Hartmann flow. Translation invariance along the walls makes the velocity and induced magnetic field functions of $z$ alone. Incompressible flow and zero normal velocity at the walls give $u_z^{\prime }=0$ and hence $u_z=0$. The zero divergence of the magnetic field makes $B_z$ constant, equal to the imposed $B_0$. There is no forcing in $y$; the homogeneous $y$-components obey the same coupled viscous-resistive equations as the $x$-components, with zero boundary data. Multiplying them by $u_y$ and $b_y/({\mu }_0\rho )$, integrating by parts and adding givesThus $u_y=b_y=0$, establishing the asserted forms on this fully developed flow branch. This is a symmetry reduction of the steady channel model, rather than a claim that every possible flow in a channel is translation invariant.

The current density and Lorentz force density areThe advective acceleration vanishes because $\mathbf{u}\cdot \nabla =u(z){\partial }_x$ acts on fields independent of $x$. The $x$-component of the magnetohydrodynamic momentum equation therefore givesThe $z$-component must also balance: it requires ${\partial }_z(p+b^2/(2{\mu }_0))=0$. Hence a compatible pressure is $p(x,z)=p_{\ast }-\rho Gx-b(z{)}^2/(2{\mu }_0)$; the specified streamwise pressure gradient does not require the ordinary pressure to be uniform in $z$. This accounts for the magnetic pressure of the induced field.

The resistive induction equation with constant magnetic diffusivity gives ${\partial }_t\mathbf{B}=\nabla \times (\mathbf{u}\times \mathbf{B})+\eta {\nabla }^2\mathbf{B}$. Since $\mathbf{u}\times \mathbf{B}=(0,-B_{0}u,0)$, its curl has $x$-component $B_0{u}^{\prime }$. Steadiness consequently givesFinally the no-slip boundary condition gives $u(\pm L)=0$, and the normal magnetic field boundary condition gives $b(\pm L)=0$. The coupled equations and all wall conditions follow directly from momentum balance and magnetic induction.

Let $e=(\nabla \mathbf{u}+\nabla {\mathbf{u}}^T)/2$ be the rate-of-strain tensor and $\mathbf{\sigma }=-pI+2\mu e$ the Newtonian fluid stress tensor. The viscous dissipation is $D[\mathbf{u}]=2\mu {\int }_{V}e:edV$. The Minimum-dissipation theorem for Stokes flow compares the Stokes flow with every sufficiently regular incompressible flow in the same domain having the same prescribed boundary velocity, with no body force or with a conservative body force absorbed into the fluid pressure. A trial field need not satisfy the Stokes flow equations. Write it as $\mathbf{u}+\mathbf{w}$, with $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{w}=0$ and $\mathbf{w}=0$ on the boundary. Integration by parts, the symmetry of the Newtonian fluid stress tensor, and $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{\sigma }=0$ giveConsequently the Stokes flow minimizes dissipation:Equality requires a rigid body motion of $\mathbf{w}$, which the prescribed boundary eliminates. Extending the flow inside the inserted particle as its rigid body velocity produces an admissible comparison field with zero internal rate-of-strain tensor; hence the extra dissipation due to a rigid inclusion is nonnegative.

Here and below $\mathbf{n}$ on $A$ points into the particle, so the traction $\mathbf{\sigma }\mathbf{n}$ represents force exerted by the particle on the fluid. Apply the Lorentz reciprocal theorem for Stokes flow in the fluid region to $\mathbf{u}$ and the restriction of ${\mathbf{u}}_0$. The equal outer boundary velocities yieldThe boundary-work formula for viscous dissipation therefore gives $D^{\prime }={\int }_A[(\mathbf{u}-{\mathbf{u}}_0)\cdot \mathbf{\sigma }\mathbf{n}+\mathbf{u}\cdot {\mathbf{\sigma }}_0\mathbf{n}]dS$. The last integral is zero: ${\mathbf{\sigma }}_0$ is symmetric and divergence-free throughout the particle's original volume, so its total force and torque there vanish, and $\mathbf{u}$ on $A$ is a rigid body velocity. This also allows the sign of this zero-work term to be reversed, giving exactly

With the particle's centre as origin, define $\mathbf{F}={\int }_A\mathbf{\sigma }\mathbf{n}dS$, $\mathbf{G}={\int }_A\mathbf{x}\times (\mathbf{\sigma }\mathbf{n})dS$ and the particle stresslet tensor $S=-\frac{1}{2}{\int }_A[\mathbf{x}(\mathbf{\sigma }\mathbf{n})+(\mathbf{\sigma }\mathbf{n})\mathbf{x}]dS$. Contracting the linear background velocity with the traction givesThe background rate-of-strain tensor $E_0$ is symmetric and trace-free; the trace of this unprojected particle stresslet tensor does not affect the contraction.

For the straight-rod resistance in a linear flow, write $\Delta \mathbf{U}=\mathbf{U}-{\mathbf{U}}_0$, $\Delta \mathbf{\Omega }=\mathbf{\Omega }-{\mathbf{\Omega }}_0$, $M=I-\mathbf{pp}/2$, and $\mathbf{X}=s\mathbf{p}$, $-L\le s\le L$. The slender-body force density becomes $\mathbf{f}=CM[\Delta \mathbf{U}+s(\Delta \mathbf{\Omega }\times \mathbf{p}-E_0\mathbf{p})]$. The integrals of $s$ and $s^2$ are $0$ and $2L^3/3$, respectively, soFor a force-free, torque-free rod, $\Delta \mathbf{U}=0$ and the perpendicular component of $\Delta \mathbf{\Omega }$ is $\mathbf{p}\times E_0\mathbf{p}$. Axial spin is not determined by this leading, zero-thickness slender-body theory; it has no effect on $\mathbf{p}$. Put $a_p=\mathbf{p}\cdot E_0\mathbf{p}$. The vector identity $(\mathbf{p}\times E_0\mathbf{p})\times \mathbf{p}=E_0\mathbf{p}-a_p\mathbf{p}$ givesThe force-free straight-rod orientation equation combines the background rotation with the part of strain that turns the rod; removing $a_p\mathbf{p}$ preserves its unit length. A rigid body cannot undergo the axial extension or compression imposed by $a_p$, so opposite axial forces resist that deformation. No leading slender-body force density is needed when $a_p=0$, even though the rod may rotate. Its particle stresslet tensor and viscous dissipation are

In the simple shear flow, ${\mathbf{\Omega }}_0=-\gamma {\mathbf{e}}_z/2$, $(E_0{)}_{xy}=(E_0{)}_{yx}=\gamma /2$ and $a_p=\gamma \cos \theta \sin \theta$. Thus the rod excess dissipation in shear isThe maxima at $\theta =\pi /4,3\pi /4$ correspond to strongest axial extension and compression. The zeros at $0,\pi /2,\pi$ correspond to zero axial strain: a rod aligned with the velocity or its gradient needs no leading force at that instant. For $\gamma >0$, $\cot \theta =\gamma t$ with the continuous branch $\theta :\pi \to 0$ and $\theta (0)=\pi /2$. Reversing the shear flow reverses the traversal. Substitution givesThe $t^{-2}$ tails make the total finite; the instantaneous zero at $t=0$ lies between two maxima.

For a dilute rod suspension, the added bulk stress is the number density times the orientation average of the particle stresslet tensor. In this ideal infinitely slender, non-interacting model, rods approach alignment with the shear flow and their excess viscous dissipation decays. A real finite-aspect-ratio rod continues to tumble; rotational diffusion and interactions also maintain a spread of orientations. One therefore expects increased effective viscosity, with alignment offering a mechanism for reduced excess viscosity at strong shear flow. This is a qualitative expectation, not a claim that a finite rod suspension has zero steady excess stress.

Take $z$ positive downwards. The leading axial velocity of a slender viscous thread is independent of radius. Incompressible flow then gives $u_r=-r{w}^{\prime }/2$, while steady mass conservation gives $(a^{2}w{)}^{\prime }=0$. The Newtonian fluid stress tensor has ${\sigma }_{rr}=-p-\mu w^{\prime }$ and ${\sigma }_{zz}=-p+2\mu w^{\prime }$. The Young–Laplace equation, neglecting axial curvature at slender order, gives ${\sigma }_{rr}=-p_e-\gamma /a$ and hence $p=p_e+\gamma /a-\mu w^{\prime }$.

The axial cut transmits both the integrated Newtonian fluid stress tensor and the circumferential surface tension. After subtracting the ambient pressure, its tensile force isThe coefficient three is the Trouton ratio for axial extension. The last term is essential: the capillary tensile force of a slender thread is $\pi \gamma a$, not $2\pi \gamma a$, because the capillary pressure subtracts half the interfacial line contribution. Axial force balance is $T^{\prime }+\pi \rho g{a}^2=0$. Together the governing equations areDefine the dimensionless variablesThen $a=a_0{W}^{-1/2}$ and the axial equation becomesFor the increasing power-law branch, all three terms have the same dependence when $\alpha =2$. Substitution leaves $1-6k^2-\Gamma k=0$. ThusThis remains valid at $\Gamma =0$, when $k=1/\sqrt{6}$. The other root is negative and describes a decreasing local branch up to its singular endpoint, not a thread accelerating downwards indefinitely. Positive surface tension decreases $k$, so it slows the fall at a given height on this branch. Thinning reduces the capillary tensile force $\pi \gamma a$. Its negative axial derivative supplies an upward capillary force on a thread segment, balancing part of the weight. The viscous tensile force therefore supplies a smaller remaining balance; on the quadratic family this reduces the stretching rate.

The condition $W(0)=1$ alone does not select a unique solution of this second-order ordinary differential equation. The boxed power law is the requested verified branch, with tensile force tending to zero at large height; an additional nozzle tension or downstream condition is required to select it physically. The slender, negligible-inertia approximation must remain valid over the height range considered.

Write $D=R_e-R_i$, $S=R_e+R_i$, $A=R_e^2-R_i^2=DS$, and $\Delta p=p_i-p_e$. Incompressible flow with axial strain rate $E$ givesIts radial Stokes equation gives $p_r=0$, because $u_{r,rr}+u_{r,r}/r-u_r/r^2=0$. The radial Newtonian fluid stress tensor component is ${\sigma }_{rr}=-p-\mu E-2\mu C/r^2$. The outer and inner Young–Laplace equation conditions have opposite curvature signs:Subtracting and eliminating $C$ givesIn particular, the boxed pressure is equivalent to the printed identity for $(-p-\mu E)A$. For equal gas pressures, $C=-\gamma R_i{R}_e/(2\mu D)$, so surface tension draws both interfaces inward in addition to the imposed extension.

The kinematic boundary condition is ${\dot{R}}_j=-E{R}_j/2+C/R_j$ at either interface. Taking the difference, and then the difference of squared radii, givesThe cancellation of $C$ in the area equation is mass conservation: axial stretching reduces the liquid area while radial redistribution changes the hole size. For $E=0$, equal pressures, and $R_i(0)=b$, $R_e(0)=2b$, one has $A=3b^2$ and $D=b+\gamma t/(2\mu )$. Since $S=A/D$,Closure occurs at $D=\sqrt{A}=\sqrt{3}b$, soThis capillary collapse of an annular viscous cylinder has finite closure time for $\gamma >0$ and $b>0$. For $\gamma =0$ it does not close in this case. The annular formula is used only up to closure; the singular cylindrical inner curvature is not a boundary condition on the subsequent solid cylinder.

Separate the uniform stream and an arbitrary time-dependent gauge from each velocity potential: ${\varphi }_j=U_{j}x+f_j(t)+{\varphi }_j^{\prime }$. Only gradients of the velocity potential determine the velocity field. The remote fluid must remain in its unperturbed uniform stream, soAfter fixing the harmless gauge, the nonzero-wavenumber perturbation velocity potentials themselves vanish at the corresponding infinities. Incompressible flow and irrotational flow give the Laplace equation for each perturbation. For a normal mode with $k>0$, the vertical amplitude solves ${\Phi }_j^{\prime \prime }-k^2{\Phi }_j=0$, henceThe opposite exponentials are excluded because they make the perturbation grow at infinity. It is the perturbation, rather than the total potential $U_{j}x+f_j(t)$, that decays.

Set $y=\tanh z$ and $a=1-k$, so $dy/dz=1-y^2$ and $\hat{w}=(1-y^2{)}^{k/2}{y}^a$. Away from $y=0$, the logarithmic derivative givesFor $c=0$, ${\overline{U}}^{\prime \prime }/\overline{U}=-2(1-y^2)$ and $N^2/{\overline{U}}^2=J(1-y^2)/y^2$. The Taylor–Goldstein equation residual divided by $\hat{w}$ consequently simplifies toThus the neutral mode of the equal-width Hazel model requiresThe qualifier “solution” needs care at the critical level of an internal gravity wave $z=0$. For $0<k<1$, $\hat{w}\sim z^{1-k}$ and ${\hat{w}}^{\prime }\sim (1-k)z^{-k}$: it is a solution separately on either side, not a classical smooth eigenfunction across the critical level of an internal gravity wave. A branch for negative $\tanh z$ is also needed. For example, a limit from $c_i>0$ assigns $(\tanh z{)}^{1-k}=|\tanh z{|}^{1-k}{e}^{-i\pi (1-k)}$ on $z<0$.

The critical-layer regularity of a neutral Hazel mode further gives local finite horizontal kinetic energy only for $0<k<1/2$, since incompressible flow gives $\hat{u}=i{\hat{w}}^{\prime }/k$ and ${\int }_0^{ϵ}{z}^{-2k}dz$ then converges. At $k=1$, $J=0$ and $\hat{w}=\mathrm{sech}z$ is smooth after the removable ${\overline{U}}^{\prime \prime }/\overline{U}$ quotient is continued. At $k=0$, $J=0$ and the formal $\tanh z$ profile does not decay at infinity, so it fails the remote endpoint condition. These qualifications prevent interpreting the whole closed parameter interval as a family of classical decaying modes.

Use $\nu =R{e}^{-1}>0$, $\kappa =P{e}^{-1}>0$, $\mathbf{U}=\overline{\mathbf{u}}+\mathbf{u}$, and $\Theta =\overline{\theta }+\theta$. Work along a sufficiently regular direct trajectory satisfying the given constraints. The zero spatial mean of the scalar field is conserved by incompressible flow, impermeable walls and zero scalar flux, so minimizing $J=(\Theta (T),\Theta (T))$ is equivalent to minimizing scalar variance, up to the fixed domain volume.

The printed functional fixes the initial state to a candidate ${\mathbf{u}}_0$; it contains no term that enforces its kinetic energy. For the optimization over that candidate, add the real Lagrange multiplier constraintEquivalently, one can restrict all control variations to the sphere in a normed vector space of fixed kinetic energy. This term changes the initial-control optimality condition, not the interior adjoint equations.

Let $\mathbf{v}=\delta \mathbf{u}$, $\sigma =\delta \theta$ and $\pi =\delta p$. Linearization of the momentum and scalar transport residuals givesBoth appearances of the perturbation velocity in the nonlinear momentum term have been differentiated. In particular, the coefficient is the gradient of the total velocity, not just the base shear.

For the negative-constraint convention of the functional, integration by parts gives the interior coefficients of $\mathbf{v},\sigma ,\pi$ asThus the adjoint equations for Boussinesq scalar mixing areThe transpose is essential: the $j$th component of $(\nabla \mathbf{U}{)}^T{\mathbf{u}}^{†}$ is ${\sum }_i{u}_i^{†}{\partial }_j{U}_i$. The coupling $-{\theta }^{†}\nabla \Theta$ transposes advection of the scalar by a velocity perturbation; $-R{i}_B{u}_y^{†}$ transposes buoyancy feedback. Dropping the latter would give a passive scalar adjoint, not the active scalar problem.

These equations are integrated backward, not forward. If $\tau =T-t$, they readwith direct coefficients evaluated at $t=T-\tau$. Both terms from the diffusion equation now have the usual forward sign in $\tau$. A direct-adjoint looping method stores or reconstructs the forward trajectory, solves these equations backward, and uses the initial adjoint as the control gradient. The endpoint and fixed-energy conditions below give necessary conditions for a local optimizer, not a global optimality theorem.

The temporal integration by parts terms areThe terminal states are free and the objective has no explicit terminal-velocity dependence. ThereforeThe factor two follows from the displayed objective without a $1/2$ prefactor. The initial scalar field perturbation is fixed, so $\delta \theta (0)=0$ and there is no independently prescribed adjoint-scalar condition at $t=0$. Its value there is obtained by backward integration. Independent variation of the initial velocity state gives ${\mathbf{u}}^{†}(0)={\mathbf{u}}_0^{†}$.

Variation of the candidate ${\mathbf{u}}_0$ in the energy-augmented functional gives the fixed-energy initial-condition optimality condition. For the usual divergence-free no-slip control space $H$, write $P_H$ for its orthogonal projection, the Leray-Helmholtz projection in the usual incompressible velocity space. This is the standard formal control condition when pressure is determined by incompressible flow and normal momentum. If the independently imposed direct pressure flux is retained as an additional constraint, the admissible control variations must also satisfy its compatibility conditions along the trajectory; they need not fill the usual space $H$. The standard projection formula alone does not prove stationarity for that more restricted problem. ThenFor the natural solenoidal adjoint space, $P_H{\mathbf{u}}^{†}(0)={\mathbf{u}}^{†}(0)$. Equivalently, its component tangent to the sphere in a normed vector space of fixed kinetic energy vanishes:Here $E_0>0$ is needed for the sphere in a normed vector space to be regular and for division by $2E_0$. The multiplier is real and can have either sign; normalizing the initial adjoint with a prescribed positive sign is not a general necessary condition for minimization. If $E_0=0$, the only feasible initial velocity is zero and this tangent formula for the sphere in a normed vector space is inapplicable. First-order stationarity alone also allows maxima or saddles; a local minimum requires the appropriate nonnegative constrained second variation.

The spatial boundary terms vanish with periodic adjoints in $x,z$, homogeneous no-slip boundary conditions ${\mathbf{u}}^{†}=0$ at $y=\pm 1$, and ${\partial }_y{\theta }^{†}=0$ there. To see this, velocity variations vanish at the wall while their normal derivatives need not, so the viscous boundary term forces the adjoint velocity to vanish. Scalar variations have zero normal derivative but free values, forcing the adjoint scalar's normal derivative to vanish. Pressure variation gives adjoint incompressible flow; no independent terminal or initial datum is assigned to $p^{†}$. Its additive time-dependent constant may be fixed by a zero spatial mean.

In particular, a homogeneous Neumann condition for the direct pressure does not by variational transposition require ${\partial }_y{p}^{†}=0$. For a smooth adjoint solution, the wall-normal adjoint momentum equation instead suppliesat the flat walls, because the direct scalar normal derivative is zero there. A zero adjoint-pressure derivative would be an additional compatibility choice, valid only when this right-hand side vanishes.

There are also literal direct-data compatibility qualifications in the printed setup. The initial total scalar field is $\overline{\theta }=-\mathrm{erf}(30y)$, whose wall derivative is $-60e^{-900}/\sqrt{\pi }\ne 0$. It is extraordinarily small but mathematically not zero. Thus exact initial scalar data and exact zero wall flux are incompatible for a classical solution smooth at $t=0$. One may use a parabolic mild solution of an abstract Cauchy problem with the boundary condition enforced for $t>0$, or replace the initial profile by an exactly compatible smooth one; these are conventions, not an equality $e^{-900}=0$. The reference scalar field is also not a stationary profile of the diffusion equation at finite $Pe$: the full $\Delta \Theta$ term must be retained.

The pressure compatibility at a no-slip wall is similarly important. Direct normal momentum gives ${\partial }_{y}p=\nu \Delta u_y-R{i}_B\theta$. The separately imposed zero pressure derivative requires this right side to vanish. It is not automatic for arbitrary fixed-energy initial velocities. For example, the divergence-free no-slip field generated by the periodic stream function $S=A(1-y^2{)}^2\sin (\alpha x)$ with $\alpha =\pi /L_x>0$ has $u_x={\partial }_{y}S$, $u_y=-{\partial }_{x}S$ and $\Delta u_y{|}_{y=\pm 1}=-8A\alpha \cos (\alpha x)\ne 0$, while $\theta (0)=0$. With $A\ne 0$ adjusted to any positive energy, no classical solution smooth up to the initial wall can satisfy that extra pressure condition. The displayed adjoints are the formal necessary equations along admissible smooth trajectories; a well-posed physical formulation normally determines pressure from incompressible flow and normal momentum, rather than imposing independent homogeneous pressure flux for every control.

Take $z$ upwards and write $\zeta =z+Wt$, so that the unperturbed interface is $\zeta =0$, with carbon dioxide above and water below. Use the sharp-interface, incompressible flow version of Darcy's law, with constant porosity and permeability of a porous medium, no capillary pressure, and effectively unbounded layers. The distinction between Darcy flux and interface speed matters: the base flux is $q_z=-\varphi W$, since the printed $W$ is the speed of the interface. Thus the base pressure gradients satisfyThe mass density ordering is stabilizing, whereas injection of the less viscous fluid into the more viscous fluid produces the Saffman–Taylor instability.

For linear stability analysis, displace the interface by $\eta =\hat{\eta }{e}^{\sigma t+i\alpha x}$. Taking the divergence of Darcy's law shows that the perturbation pressure satisfies the Laplace equation. Decay away from the interface gives, for $a_{\alpha }=|\alpha |>0$,The kinematic boundary condition and continuity of normal Darcy flux giveMeanwhile pressure continuity, evaluated on the displaced interface, givesEliminating $A,B$ yields the buoyancy-modified Darcy fingering dispersion relation:Every nonzero wavenumber decays when $W<W_c$, grows when $W>W_c$, and is neutral at equality, whereThe zero wavenumber is a uniform displacement and is neutral. Without a short-scale regularization such as surface tension, this model has no fastest-growing finite wavenumber: on the unstable side its growth rate increases without bound as $|\alpha |$ increases. Finite layer depths would change the dispersion relation; none are specified here.

Taking $g=9.81\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-2}$ and a year of $365.25$ days, the data giveThe numerical paragraph supplies no porosity, so it cannot determine a unique numerical interface speed. If $W$ were instead intended to mean Darcy velocity, the numerical critical value would be $103.2\mathrm{m}\mathrm{y}{\mathrm{r}}^{-1}$, and the interface would move at $W/\varphi$. These two velocity conventions must not be conflated.

Let $z$ increase upwards, so the bed is at $z=-b(x)$, the surface is at $z=h(x,t)$, and $H=h+b$. In the shallow-shelf approximation the incompressible flow has nearly depth-uniform horizontal speed $u$ and vertical strain $w_z=-u_x$. The Newtonian fluid stress tensor, together with the hydrostatic approximation, then givesThe factor four includes both horizontal extension and the pressure correction required by vertical compression. Integrating horizontal force balance over depth, using zero surface shear and the bed traction, gives the membrane-stress derivative ${\partial }_x(4\mu H{u}_x)$ and the gravitational driving force $-\rho gH{h}_x$. The thin subglacial till layer is idealized by Newtonian till lubrication and undergoes Couette flow, with resisting basal stress $\lambda \mu u/l$. Hence force balance and mass conservation yieldSince $b$ is fixed, $H_t=h_t$. No accumulation or ablation is included.

At the grounding line, the first boundary condition is ice-sheet flotation:For an unbuttressed ice shelf, the second is the extensional stress required to balance the difference between the integrated ice and seawater hydrostatic pressures. The ice contribution is $\rho g{H}_G^2/2$, while the water contribution is ${\rho }_{w}g{b}_G^2/2$. On using ice-sheet flotation, their difference is $\rho g^{\prime }{H}_G^2/2$, with $g^{\prime }=g(1-\rho /{\rho }_w)>0$. Equivalently, shelf force balance integrates to $4\mu H{u}_x-\rho g^{\prime }{H}^2/2=\text{constant}$; absence of a buttressing force sets this constant to zero. Thus the unbuttressed Newtonian grounding-line stress condition isHere $\nu$ is kinematic viscosity; it appears in the printed target formula without an explicit definition.

The ratio of longitudinal stress divergence to till drag is of order $4lH/(\lambda L^2)$. The given small-parameter limit therefore yields the friction-dominated bulk relationThe coefficient depends on the basal lubrication, and $h_x<0$ gives seaward motion. This is a bulk reduction: longitudinal stress has been neglected in the differential equation but its boundary traction remains specified. A complete uniformly valid approximation close to the grounding line could require a membrane-stress boundary layer. In the remainder, use the pointwise friction closure and retain the shelf stress condition as the boundary data, as requested in the paper.

Differentiate the ice-sheet flotation condition along the moving grounding line:Now $H_x=h_x+\alpha$. Substitution of the friction-dominated speed and the shelf stress boundary condition gives the friction-dominated grounding-line evolution law:The coefficient of ${\dot{x}}_G$ is the spatial derivative of the flotation deficit, up to sign. If it vanishes, the implicit equation remains the correct compatibility condition but division to determine a finite speed is invalid; tangential contact needs separate analysis.

In a steady state, volume flux per unit width is constant: $Hu=q_0$. The friction relation givesDifferentiating $Hu=q_0$ and using $u_x=g^{\prime }H/(8\nu )$ at the grounding line givesPut $\beta =l/\lambda$, $\mathcal{H}=H/\beta$ and $\mathcal{Q}=\nu q_0/(g{\beta }^3)$. Substitution and cancellation of $g{\beta }^5/\nu$ yield the steady friction-dominated grounding-line thickness relation:For $q_0>0$ and a bed deepening seaward ($\alpha \ge 0$), the polynomial $(g^{\prime }/8g){\mathcal{H}}^5+\alpha \mathcal{Q}{\mathcal{H}}^2-{\mathcal{Q}}^2$ is strictly increasing for $\mathcal{H}>0$, starts negative and tends to infinity, so it has exactly one positive root. At that root $\mathcal{Q}>\alpha {\mathcal{H}}^2$ and $H_x<0$, as required by steady outward extension. The relation belongs to the specified friction closure; it is not a flux law for arbitrary till rheology or arbitrary membrane-stress matching.

Take $h=2k_c$ and $D=d/dz$. Taking the divergence of the Stokes flow momentum equation gives ${\nabla }^{2}P=R{\theta }_z$; applying the Laplacian to its vertical component then eliminates pressure and gives ${\nabla }^{4}w=-R{\theta }_{xx}$. The forced velocity and temperature are $O({ϵ}^2)$, so their advection product is $O({ϵ}^4)$ and drops out at leading order. The steady heat equation reduces to $w_0+{\nabla }^2{\theta }_0=0$.

Consequently the boundary value problem for the forced profiles isIts six boundary conditions areThe horizontal velocity field is $u_0=-{ϵ}^2{w}_{ϵ}^{\prime }(z)\sin (hx)/h$, which directly verifies the incompressible flow and stress-free boundary condition. In the detuning used subsequently, $R$ may be replaced by $R_c$ in this leading problem, since its correction enters at order ${ϵ}^4$. The vertical profiles depend linearly on $\gamma$.

For reference, the unforced free-slip convection neutral curve is $R_0(k)=(k^2+{\pi }^2{)}^3/k^2$, with $k_c=\pi /\sqrt{2}$ and $R_c=27{\pi }^4/4$. At $h=2k_c$ the neutral curve has $R_0(h)=2R_c$, so the forced second horizontal harmonic is noncritical at $R_c$, and the stated linear problem has no critical-mode resonance.

Take the layer depth as the length unit, its thermal diffusion time as the time unit, and its imposed temperature difference as the temperature unit. Then $\mathbf{u}=(u,0,w)$ is the velocity field, $P$ the pressure after the conductive hydrostatic pressure has been subtracted, $\theta$ the departure from the conductive temperature $T_0=1-z$, ${\mathbf{e}}_z$ the upward unit vector, and $R=g\alpha \Delta T{d}^3/(\nu {\kappa }_T)$ the Rayleigh number. Here $d$ is the dimensional depth, $\nu$ the kinematic viscosity, ${\kappa }_T$ the thermal diffusivity and $\alpha$ the thermal expansion coefficient. The gradient, divergence and Laplacian act on the dimensionless coordinates. The term $w$ in the heat equation is advection of the background gradient, since $-\mathbf{u}\cdot \nabla T_0=w$. Mass density variations enter only the buoyancy term under the Boussinesq approximation; the incompressible flow constraint is $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{u}=0$.