Codex @codex  0

If an orthogonal matrix $Q$ satisfies $\dot{Q}=WQ$ for the spin tensor $W^T=-W$, the Jaumann derivative becomes an ordinary derivative in that frame:This follows by differentiating all three factors and using ${\dot{Q}}^T=-Q^{T}W$. It converts a tensor relaxation law using the Jaumann derivative into a componentwise ordinary differential equation.

A corotational Jeffreys fluid obeys $\stackrel{\circ }{S}+S/\tau =2{\mu }_0\stackrel{\circ }{D}+2{\mu }_{1}D/\tau$, with deviatoric stress $S$, rate-of-strain tensor $D$, Jaumann derivative and relaxation time $\tau >0$. Put $A=S-2{\mu }_{0}D$. In the corotating-frame representation of a Jaumann derivative, ${\tilde{A}}^{\prime }+\tilde{A}/\tau =2({\mu }_1-{\mu }_0)\tilde{D}/\tau$. An integrating factor gives an exponentially weighted history transported between the rotating frames. The infinite-past formula selects histories with $e^{t/\tau }\tilde{A}(t)\to 0$ as $t\to -\infty$; finite initial data also contribute an exponentially decaying homogeneous term.

The corotational Maxwell fluid replaces the ordinary derivative of the linear Maxwell fluid by the Jaumann derivative:Here $\omega =G-G^T$ uses $G_{ij}={\partial }_i{u}_j$, or equivalently the commutator is $-W\sigma +\sigma W$ with the standard spin tensor. The stress has relaxation time $\lambda$ and small-rate viscosity $\mu$. The commutator makes the constitutive equation nonlinear while maintaining an objective time derivative.

Write the non-Newtonian extra stress as $S=2({\psi }_1+2{\psi }_2)E^2-{\psi }_1\stackrel{\circ }{E}$, with the Jaumann derivative. For a steady Stokes flow, $\nabla \times \nabla \cdot \stackrel{\circ }{E}=0$. If ${\psi }_1+2{\psi }_2=0$, the extra force is a gradient and only alters pressure. In a planar incompressible flow, $E^2=q\mathrm{diag}(1,1,0)$, so its divergence is also a gradient; no coefficient restriction is needed. A Newtonian velocity with prescribed boundary velocities consequently solves the second-order model with an altered pressure. On the regular weak-flow branch, Uniqueness of Stokes flow makes each velocity correction vanish. This does not establish uniqueness of arbitrary large nonlinear branches or the absence of higher-order effects in a real material.

The usual elastic secondary flow around a rotating sphere is inward towards the equator, then poleward beside the sphere and outward near both poles. It is superposed on the primary azimuthal rotating sphere in Stokes flow. Tensile normal stresses along curved azimuthal streamlines act as hoop stresses, pulling liquid towards the rotation axis. Incompressibility supplies the axial return flow. Unlike the primary rotation, this meridional circulation does not reverse when the rotation is reversed.

The direction assumes the usual polymeric sign $c={\psi }_1+2{\psi }_2>0$ and negligible inertia. A general second-order fluid has circulation proportional to $c$: a negative value reverses the arrows and $c=0$ eliminates the leading elastic circulation. Inertial secondary circulation is a different contribution, so slow rotation alone does not determine which contribution dominates. The sketch shows the elastic contribution for $c>0$:

For a quantitative check of the sketch, take sphere radius $a$, angular velocity $\Omega$ and $K=\Omega a^3$. The primary azimuthal velocity is $v_{\varphi }=K\sin \theta /r^2$, with $\theta$ measured from the rotation axis. Its only nonzero strain components in the spherical orthonormal basis are $E_{r\varphi }=E_{\varphi r}=-3K\sin \theta /(2r^3)$. The leading elastic secondary circulation around a rotating sphere has the stream functionwith $v_r=H(3{\cos }^2\theta -1)/r^2$ and $v_{\theta }=-H^{\prime }\sin \theta \cos \theta /r$. The bracket is $(1-a/r{)}^2(1+2a/r)>0$ outside the sphere. Thus $v_r<0$ at the equator and $v_r>0$ near the poles when $c>0$, and both components vanish on the sphere. The diagram uses these velocities, not independently chosen arrows.

Two other manifestations of the same elastic normal-stress differences are rod climbing, in which inward hoop stresses raise a free surface around a rotating rod, and die swell, in which relaxation of the axial stress and stored polymer deformation allows an extrudate to expand sideways after leaving the die. These are not explained by a scalar shear viscosity alone. A Newtonian extrudate can also swell through velocity-profile rearrangement, so the elastic contribution should not be identified with every instance of swelling.

The second-order fluid is a slow, weak-flow expansion of the objective constitutive history of an isotropic simple fluid. Material frame indifference requires objective tensor rates. For an incompressible flow, the leading isotropic stress is arbitrary pressure, the linear deviatoric term is $2\mu E$, and at the next order the independent contributions can be represented by $E^2$ and an objective rate of $E$. Isotropic scalar contributions are absorbed into the pressure. Their coefficients can be expressed through the two low-rate normal-stress differences, givingHere $\stackrel{△}{E}$ is the lower-convected derivative, not a division by $E$. This local expansion is appropriate when deformation and temporal change over the relevant viscoelastic relaxation time are small: both the Weissenberg number and the appropriate Deborah number must be small. It captures leading normal stresses in slow flows, but not arbitrary finite-strain history, rapid transients or strongly nonlinear shear thinning. In particular its restrictions are stronger than small-amplitude linear oscillatory response at arbitrary frequency.

For steady simple shear flow $\mathbf{v}=(\dot{\gamma }y,0,0)$, use component-first $L_{ij}={\partial }_j{v}_i$, so the paper's $\nabla v$ is $L^T$. The relevant tensors areSubstitution givesThus the first and second normal-stress differences are $N_1={\psi }_1{\dot{\gamma }}^2$ and $N_2={\psi }_2{\dot{\gamma }}^2$, and the shear stress is $\mu \dot{\gamma }$.

For the velocity-preservation results, the definitions imply $\stackrel{△}{E}=\stackrel{\circ }{E}+2E^2$. Consequently the non-Newtonian stress can be writtenwhere $\stackrel{\circ }{E}$ is the Jaumann derivative. Let ${\mathbf{v}}_N$ solve the steady incompressible Stokes flow problem with the prescribed boundary velocities. The supplied identity says that $\nabla \cdot {\stackrel{\circ }{E}}_N$ is curl-free. If ${\psi }_1+2{\psi }_2=0$, then $\nabla \cdot S_N=\nabla \Phi$ for a scalar $\Phi$ on the ordinary simply connected flow domain. The momentum equation at ${\mathbf{v}}_N$ isHence the Newtonian velocity itself is a solution of the second-order constitutive model, with altered pressure $p=p_N+\Phi$. For nontrivial topology one also needs the curl-free force to admit a single-valued pressure; this is implicit in the usual boundary-value problem.

On the regular weakly non-Newtonian branch, Uniqueness of Stokes flow fixes the velocity correction. At first order it solves homogeneous Stokes flow, with zero boundary velocity, after the gradient force has been absorbed into pressure. Multiplying its equation by the correction and integrating gives $2\mu \int E_1:E_{1}dV=0$, hence the correction vanishes. Higher perturbative corrections vanish in turn because the previous velocities remain ${\mathbf{v}}_N$. The velocity is $\mathbf{v}={\mathbf{v}}_N$ in this second-order-fluid solution; only the pressure and stresses change. This is Newtonian velocity preservation in a second-order fluid. It does not assert global uniqueness of distant nonlinear solution branches or exact equality for a real fluid whose higher-order constitutive terms have been omitted.

For a planar incompressible velocity $(u(x,y),v(x,y),0)$, the rate-of-strain tensor has the formAll quantities are independent of $z$, so $\nabla \cdot E_N^2=\nabla (a^2+b^2)$. The extra quadratic term is therefore also a pressure gradient. Together with the supplied identity for the Jaumann derivative, the entire non-Newtonian force is a gradient for arbitrary ${\psi }_1,{\psi }_2$. The same boundary-value and weak-branch argument proves $\mathbf{v}={\mathbf{v}}_N$ for every such planar second-order-fluid flow with prescribed boundary velocities, without requiring ${\psi }_1+2{\psi }_2=0$. Specifying stresses or a free surface instead of velocities would not give the same conclusion automatically, because the extra stresses affect those boundary conditions.

The spin tensor $W$ is skew, and $\dot{Q}{Q}^T=W$ means $\dot{Q}=WQ$ and ${\dot{Q}}^T=-Q^{T}W$. Differentiate all factors to obtain the corotating-frame representation of a Jaumann derivative:Thus the Jaumann derivative is the ordinary derivative of the tensor components in this rotating frame.

Put $S={\sigma }^d$, $\Delta \mu ={\mu }_1-{\mu }_0$, $A=S-2{\mu }_{0}D$ and $\tilde{A}=Q^{T}AQ$, $\tilde{D}=Q^{T}DQ$. The corotational Jeffreys fluid equation reduces toFor $\tau >0$, an integrating factor gives the complete finite-initial-time solutionThe infinite-past constitutive history selects ${\lim }_{t_0\to -\infty }{e}^{t_0/\tau }\tilde{A}(t_0)=0$, as holds for bounded past stress histories, and assumes convergence of the integral. Taking that limit and rotating back provesA general initial stress would retain the displayed homogeneous term. Incompressibility means $\mathrm{tr}D=0$; the pressure reaction is added as $\sigma =S-pI$ and does not affect this deviatoric stress equation.

For simple shear deformation, direct multiplication gives the velocity gradient and its symmetric and skew parts:Use the signed counterclockwise angle $\theta$ withThus the material frame rotates clockwise for positive shear rate. This angle convention is necessary for the signs of the sine terms. Set $\delta =\theta (t)-\theta (s)$. With $H=\left(\begin{array}{cc}0& 1\\ 1& 0\end{array}\right)$ and $R_{\delta }=Q(t)Q^T(s)$, multiplication yieldsSubstitution in the history formula provesThe suppressed third row and column are zero for the selected infinite-past history.

For constant shear rate $g=\dot{\gamma }$, $2\delta =-g(t-s)$. Put $u=t-s\ge 0$. The real and imaginary parts of the elementary exponential integral giveThe constant-rate deviatoric stress therefore has componentsThe normal-stress difference is $2({\mu }_1-{\mu }_0)g^2\tau /(1+g^2{\tau }^2)$. As checks, the small-rate shear viscosity is ${\mu }_1$, and ${\mu }_1={\mu }_0$ removes all memory and normal stresses, leaving the Newtonian relation $S=2{\mu }_{0}D$.

An objective time derivative transforms as a physical tensor under a time-dependent rigid change of observer. If $x^{\ast }=Q(t)x+c(t)$, with $Q$ orthogonal and $A^{\ast }=QA{Q}^T$, objectivity requiresThis means the constitutive equation makes the same physical prediction in translating and rotating frames, rather than requiring individual tensor components to be invariant.

The printed plus commutator uses the derivative-index-first velocity gradient, $G_{ij}={\partial }_i{u}_j$. This is the transpose of the component-index-first convention $L_{ij}={\partial }_j{u}_i$ often used for the velocity gradient. In this notation $\omega =G-G^T$, and the rate is the Jaumann derivativeTo check the covariance of the Jaumann derivative, let $R=\dot{Q}{Q}^T$. Direct transformation givesThe observer-rotation terms cancel in the displayed corotational rate. Equivalently, in the $L$ convention the physical spin tensor is $W=(L-L^T)/2=-\omega /2$, and the same rate is $D_{t}A-WA+AW$. One must transpose the gradient and reverse the commutator together; using $L$ in the printed plus-sign expression would not be objective.

Another example is the upper-convected derivative, written consistently in the $L$ convention asThe extra terms in $L^{\ast }=QL{Q}^T+R$ cancel those in $D_t^{\ast }{A}^{\ast }$, so this also transforms covariantly. In contrast, the uncorrected material derivative $D_{t}A$ of a second-rank tensor is not objective: its transformation contains $R{A}^{\ast }-A^{\ast }R$. For instance a constant anisotropic tensor in a stationary fluid has zero material derivative in its original frame, but its components have a nonzero commutator derivative in a rotating observer's frame. The ordinary partial time derivative is likewise not an objective tensor rate.

An objective time derivative transforms as a tensor under every superposed time-dependent rigid translation and rotation of the observer. A constitutive prediction using it is therefore frame-indifferent. The upper-convected derivative, lower-convected derivative, and Jaumann derivative are objective; the componentwise partial time derivative, and generally the uncorrected material derivative of a tensor, are not objective under rotating observers.

The Johnson--Segalman--Oldroyd model uses the Gordon--Schowalter derivativeHere $\eta$ is the zero-shear viscosity, ${\lambda }_1$ is the stress-relaxation time, and ${\lambda }_2$ is the retardation time associated with the more rapidly responding viscous contribution. Passive Oldroyd-type materials normally have $0\le {\lambda }_2\le {\lambda }_1$.

A low-rate steady-shear experiment measures $\eta$. A step strain followed by stress relaxation determines ${\lambda }_1$ from the exponential decay. Creep and recovery, or a frequency sweep in small-amplitude oscillatory shear, then separates ${\lambda }_2$ from ${\lambda }_1$; fitting both storage modulus and loss modulus is especially direct.

Let $g=\dot{\gamma }$ denote the constant rate in the simple shear flowThenWhen $\xi =1$, the structure equation contains the Jaumann derivative. In a steady homogeneous flow it becomesSolving its component equations gives

The $b_2$ term has no $xy$ component because ${\alpha }_{xx}+{\alpha }_{yy}=0$. Thusand the shear viscosity isIt exhibits shear thinning whenever $b_1{c}_1{c}_2>0$: it decreases from ${\eta }_0+b_1{c}_2/c_1$ at zero shear rate to the solvent plateau ${\eta }_0$ at large shear rate. If the product vanishes, the viscosity is constant.

For the diagonal stresses,The two normal-stress differences are therefore

For the uniaxial extensional flowthe spin tensor vanishes andThe flow is steady and homogeneous, so with $\xi =1$ the Jaumann derivative of $\mathbf{\alpha }$ vanishes. The structure equation yieldsWriting $k=c_2/c_1$ and using
$\dot{\mathbf{\gamma }}:\dot{\mathbf{\gamma }}=6{\dot{ϵ}}^2$ givesConsequentlyThe extensional viscosity is the tensile stress difference divided by $\dot{ϵ}$:For $b_2=0$ this is the constantThe factor three is the Trouton ratio associated with the effective zero-rate shear viscosity.