Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge / 2013 / iii / Paper 68 (Slow Viscous Flow)

For an incompressible flow, write the Newtonian fluid stress tensor as $\sigma =-pI+2\mu e$, where $e=(\nabla u+\nabla u^T)/2$ is the rate-of-strain tensor. The Stokes equation gives ${\partial }_j{\sigma }_{ij}=0$. Symmetry of the Cauchy stress tensor therefore givesIntegrating and applying the divergence theorem expresses the viscous dissipation as boundary power:At a moving rigid body, the surface velocity is $U+\Omega \times (x-x_c)$. Its boundary-power contribution is $U\cdot F+\Omega \cdot G$, with the force and torque evaluated using the fluid's outward normal vector. Both resultants vanish for a force-free, torque-free inclusion. Thus the new viscous dissipation comes entirely from the unchanged outer boundary velocity. Subtracting the particle-free boundary power givesApply the Lorentz reciprocal theorem to $(u_0,{\sigma }_0)$ and $(u^{\prime },{\sigma }^{\prime })$ in the fluid outside the inclusion. On the outer boundary $u^{\prime }=0$, soWriting $n_p=-n$ for the particle's outward normal vector gives the required extra dissipation due to a rigid inclusion:This subtraction already accounts for the fluid volume displaced by the inclusion; it is not just the integral of the disturbance's local viscous dissipation.

For the sphere, the ambient rate-of-strain tensor $E$ is symmetric and trace free. The sphere in a uniform straining Stokes flow has zero translational and rotational velocity: inversion symmetry eliminates its force, and symmetry of $E$ eliminates its torque. To derive the disturbance, put $r=|x|$, $Q=x\cdot Ex$ and seekThe incompressible flow condition and Stokes equation reduce toA decaying family satisfying these equations is $f=A{r}^{-5}$, $g=B{r}^{-5}-5A{r}^{-7}/2$, $j=2B{r}^{-5}$. The no-slip boundary condition requires $f(a)=-1$ and $g(a)=0$, so $A=-a^5$ and $B=-5a^3/2$. ConsequentlyThe total velocity is zero at $r=a$, and the disturbance decays as $r^{-2}$. The pressure constant has been set to zero. These boundary and far-field conditions, together with Uniqueness of Stokes flow, establish the solution. There is no rotational background in a pure strain flow.

On the sphere $u^{\prime }=-u_0=-aE{n}_p$. Contracting the supplied Newtonian fluid stress tensor with $n_p$ makes its two terms proportional to $(n_p\cdot E{n}_p)n_p$ cancel, leaving $\sigma n_p=5\mu E{n}_p$. Hence the extra dissipation due to a rigid inclusion isHere ${\int }_{S^2}{n}_j{n}_{k}d\Omega =4\pi {\delta }_{jk}/3$. Taking the large outer boundary limit only after using the fixed-boundary power identity avoids replacing that prescribed boundary by an uncontrolled boundary at infinity.

If $N_v$ denotes the number of spheres per unit volume, $N_v(4\pi a^3/3)=\varphi$. ThusAdd this to the particle-free viscous dissipation density $2\mu E:E$. Comparing with $2{\mu }_{\mathrm{eff}}E:E$ gives the Einstein viscosity formula for a dilute suspension:to first order in $\varphi$. The hydrodynamic interactions neglected here contribute beyond that dilute order.

For two Stokes flows $(u^{(1)},{\sigma }^{(1)})$ and $(u^{(2)},{\sigma }^{(2)})$ of the same dynamic viscosity in the same region, with no volume force, the Lorentz reciprocal theorem statesIndeed, the divergence of their cross-work difference isThe pressure terms vanish by incompressible flow, and the derivatives of the Cauchy stress tensors vanish by the Stokes equation. The divergence theorem proves the result.

Use the convention that $F,G$ are the force and torque exerted by the body on the fluid. By Linearity of Stokes flow, $(F,G)=\mathsf{R}(U,\Omega )$. Applying the Lorentz reciprocal theorem to two independent rigid motions gives $q_1^T\mathsf{R}{q}_2=q_2^T\mathsf{R}{q}_1$, so the hydrodynamic resistance matrix is a symmetric matrix. The boundary-power identity givesThis is strictly positive for nonzero rigid motion: equality would imply $e=0$, hence a rigid motion throughout the connected fluid, which must vanish since the fluid is at rest at infinity. The no-slip boundary condition would then force $q=0$. Therefore $\mathsf{R}$ is a positive-definite matrix. Reversing to the fluid-on-body force changes the sign of the force law, not the positive resistance coefficients.

For the two rods, take the torque about $O$ and use body axes. On the $x$-rod, $X=(s,0,0)$, $0\le s\le 2L$, and its slender-body force density isOn the $y$-rod it isIntegrate $f$ and $X\times f$ along both rods, using $\int ds=2L$, $\int sds=2L^2$ and $\int s^{2}ds=8L^3/3$. A convenient dimensionally uniform statement of the complete right-angle two-rod resistance matrix isIn physical coordinates this means translation–translation entries scale as $CL$, the two translation–rotation blocks as $C{L}^2$, and rotation–rotation entries as $C{L}^3$. The planar block has inverseThis verifies the printed hydrodynamic mobility matrix with its third velocity component $L{\Omega }_z$; the TeX aid's ${\Omega }_x$ is an OCR error.

Take laboratory vertical velocity positive upwards. The body axes are $e_1=(\cos \theta ,\sin \theta )$ and $e_2=(-\sin \theta ,\cos \theta )$. In quasistatic sedimentation the force and torque exerted on the fluid equal the gravitational resultants on the body:The out-of-plane block is unforced, so its positive hydrodynamic resistance matrix gives $U_z={\Omega }_x={\Omega }_y=0$. Substitution in the planar hydrodynamic mobility matrix givesandFor $0\le \lambda <1$, this ordinary differential equation has positive right side on $0\le \theta <\pi /4$, with a stable zero at $\pi /4$. Uniqueness prevents crossing that equilibrium in finite time. For $\lambda >1$ the initial angular velocity is negative, and the stable equilibrium reached from zero is $-3\pi /4$. The heavier-end body turns clockwise through $3\pi /4$; it does not settle at $\pi /4$. More explicitly, with $K=(1-\lambda )mg/(4C{L}^2)$,where the continuous branch has $\theta -\pi /4\in (-\pi ,0)$. At $\lambda =1$, $\theta$ remains zero.

Transforming the translational velocity back to laboratory axes givesFor $\lambda \ne 1$, eliminate time between $U_h$ and the angular velocity:At either limiting orientation $\sin \theta =\cos \theta$. Thus both cases have the same net horizontal displacement,For $\lambda <1$ the drift is monotonically rightwards. For $\lambda >1$ it first moves left, reaching $x_O-x_O(0)=(2L/3)(1-\sqrt{2})$ at $\theta =-\pi /4$, then reverses. The total horizontal path length in this second case is $(2L/3)(2\sqrt{2}-1)$, whereas its net displacement is $2L/3$ rightwards. At $\lambda =1$ it falls vertically without rotation or drift; taking the infinite-time limit before $\lambda \to 1$ is consequently singular.

For the requested sedimentation drift of a weighted two-rod body sketch, a full parametric trajectory follows by also integrating $U_v/\dot{\theta }$. Put $\psi =\theta -\pi /4$ and set the initial height to zero:It tends to $-\infty$ in either case while $x_O$ tends to $2L/3$. At $\lambda <1$ both rods end pointing upwards from $O$ symmetrically; at $\lambda >1$ they end pointing downwards symmetrically. The asymptotic downward speed is $(1+2\lambda )mg/(3CL)$.

For the motionless uniform layer, the heat equation reduces to $T_{zz}=0$. The lower temperature and upper heat-transfer condition determine the quasistatic temperature of a conductively cooled film:When $\alpha h/\kappa \ll 1$, $T_s=T_0-\Delta T\alpha h/\kappa +O(\Delta T(\alpha h/\kappa {)}^2)$. For a varying film let its vertical velocity scale as $Uh/L$, as required by incompressible flow. Relative to vertical thermal diffusion, horizontal thermal diffusion is smaller by $(h/L{)}^2$, and either horizontal or vertical thermal advection is smaller by $U{h}^2/(\kappa L)$. Time variation on the film's transport timescale $L/U$ has the same small factor. Thus the leading heat equation is again $T_{zz}=0$ at each $x,t$ when both specified dimensionless parameters are small. This argument retains the small $\alpha h/\kappa$ assumption. If thickness were externally varied on a faster timescale $t_h$, one would additionally need $h^2/(\kappa t_h)\ll 1$; the spatial conditions alone do not control arbitrary rapid time dependence.

Define $b={\gamma }^{\prime }\Delta T\alpha /\kappa >0$. The surface tension at the surface is ${\gamma }_s={\gamma }_0+bh$, so the Marangoni stress is ${\gamma }_{s,x}=b{h}_x$. With capillary pressure $p=-{\gamma }_0{h}_{xx}$ to leading order, horizontal Stokes flow in the film solves $\mu u_{zz}=p_x$, $u(0)=0$, $\mu u_z(h)={\gamma }_{s,x}$. HenceThe continuity equation gives the thermocapillary thin-film equationTo justify using constant surface tension in the capillary pressure, compare the two volume fluxes on horizontal scale $L$: their magnitudes are ${\gamma }_0{h}^4/(3\mu L^3)$ and $b{h}^3/(2\mu L)$. When both mechanisms are retained at leading order, their balance gives $bh/{\gamma }_0=O((h/L{)}^2)\ll 1$. Thus replacing ${\gamma }_s$ by ${\gamma }_0$ in the curvature term incurs only a relative small correction. Equivalently, small $\alpha h/\kappa$ ensures this if ${\gamma }^{\prime }\Delta T/{\gamma }_0$ is bounded; if it were parametrically large, the extra small surface-tension-variation condition would have to be imposed separately.

The capillary pressure is higher beneath a crest than beneath a trough, so pressure-driven volume flux drains the crest and smooths thickness. The Marangoni effect acts oppositely: a thicker region has a colder surface and therefore larger surface tension. Surface velocity is pulled towards that region, supplying more liquid and amplifying the thickness variation. The arrows below represent these two mechanisms separately.

Put $a_c={\gamma }_0/(3\mu )$ and $a_m=b/(2\mu )$. Substitution of $h=\hat{h}H$, $x=\hat{h}X/ϵ$, $t=\hat{t}\tau$ gives coefficients $a_m{ϵ}^2\hat{t}$ and $a_c{ϵ}^4\hat{t}/\hat{h}$. Making both equal to one yieldsIn these scales the fractional surface tension change is $b\hat{h}/{\gamma }_0=2{ϵ}^2/3$, making the previous approximation explicit.

The linear stability analysis about $H=1$ gives ${\eta }_{\tau }+{\eta }_{XX}+{\eta }_{XXXX}=0$. For a normal mode $e^{s\tau +ikX}$,Long waves with $0<|k|<1$ grow, $|k|>1$ decay, and $k=0,\pm 1$ are neutral. The neutral $k=0$ mode changes the mean film thickness. The dispersion relation is even in $k$, with its two maxima at $\pm 1/\sqrt{2}$.

For a steady positive film with zero volume flux, divide $H^2{H}_X+H^3{H}_{XXX}=0$ by $H^3$ and integrate to obtain $H_{XX}+\ln H=C$. Choosing $\hat{h}$ as specified fixes $C=0$. Multiplication by $H_X$ and another integration then give the zero-flux thermocapillary film profiles first integralFor $H>0$, $V^{\prime }=\ln H$ and $V^{\prime \prime }=1/H>0$: the unique minimum is $V(1)=-1$, while $V(0^{+})=0$ and $V(e)=0$. This potential energy interpretation classifies the profiles without assuming a sinusoidal shape at finite amplitude.

For $E=-1$, the only profile is the uniform film $H=1$. For $-1<E<0$, there are two positive turning heights $H_{-}<1<H_{+}<e$ and a smooth periodic film oscillates between them. Its period isFor $E=0$, the maximum is $e$ and the lower endpoint is zero. A drop reaches zero thickness in finite distance, with zero limiting slope but unbounded curvature since $H_{XX}=-\ln H$. Its half-width isThus the formal limiting profile consists of drops of peak height $e$ and footprint width $2\sqrt{\pi e}$, with zero limiting contact angle. Identical drops can touch, or a zero-thickness region can separate them in the degenerate zero-flux model. These are limiting wet-region solutions, not everywhere positive twice differentiable films; the singular contact region is not resolved by lubrication theory. A useful parametric drop profile isFinally let $E=-1+\delta E$ with small positive $\delta E$. Writing $H=1+\eta$ gives $V=-1+{\eta }^2/2+O({\eta }^3)$ and $H_{XX}=-\eta +O({\eta }^2)$. The small-amplitude steady profile is $H=1+\sqrt{2\delta E}\cos (X-X_c)+O(\delta E)$, with period tending to $2\pi$. Its wavenumber tends to the neutral boundary $|k|=1$ of the unstable band, not to the fastest-growing wavenumber.

Take $\Delta \rho >0$ and $\tau >0$, with $x$ pointing along the imposed shear stress, and put $G=\Delta \rho g$. Relative to the upper fluid's hydrostatic reference, the hydrostatic pressure in the current is $p=G(h-z)$. Thus the horizontal pressure gradient is $G\nabla h$. The lubrication theory momentum balance, lower no-slip boundary condition, and imposed upper shear stress giveIts depth-integrated volume flux isDefine $D=G/(3\mu )$ and $A=\tau /(2\mu )$. The continuity equation gives the shear-driven viscous gravity current equationThe two terms have opposite roles: imposed shear stress carries fluid downstream, whereas the hydrostatic pressure gradient spreads it from thick regions towards thin ones.

For the approximation, a representative horizontal velocity is $U\sim \tau H/\mu +G{H}^3/(\mu L)$, with vertical velocity $UH/L$. Small slopes require $H/L\ll 1$. Horizontal fluid inertia relative to vertical viscous resistance is ${\rho }_{c}U{H}^2/(\mu L)$, where ${\rho }_c=\rho +\Delta \rho$. Hence sufficient small parameters, expressed without an unknown velocity, areFor the hydrostatic pressure and normal-stress approximation also require $\mu U/(GHL)\ll 1$. Its gravity-driven part is already $(H/L{)}^2$; its shear-driven part addsThis condition controls viscous normal stress, vertical viscous corrections and the normal projection of shear at a slightly tilted interface relative to $GH$. With it and the previous inertia bounds, vertical inertia is small as well. Time variations here are on the transport timescale $L/U$; separately imposed rapid forcing would need its own unsteady inertia bound. A small ordinary Reynolds number is a stronger sufficient restriction, but the reduced inertia ratios above are what the thin-layer momentum balance directly requires.

In the steady far-downstream regime, cross-stream derivatives dominate gravity-driven spreading. Dropping the smaller downstream gravity flux leavesWrite $Y=y_N(x)$ and let $h_c$ be a typical central thickness. Balance gives $Y^2\sim (D/A)h_c^{2}x$, while conservation of the source volume flux gives $Q\sim A{h}_c^{2}Y$. Therefore the downstream similarity of a shear-driven gravity current hasThe omitted downstream gravity flux relative to the imposed shear flux is $D{h}_c^2/(Ax)\sim (Y/x{)}^2\ll 1$, so this approximation is self-consistent in the stated regime.

For the full profile put $w=h^2$. Then $h^3{h}_y=(w^2{)}_y/4$ andThis is a porous medium equation with downstream distance as its evolution coordinate. Conservation of $\int wdy=Q/A$ and a similarity solution $w=x^{-1/3}f(\eta )$, $\eta =y/x^{1/3}$, givewhere symmetry gives zero integration constant at $\eta =0$. Inside the positive region, $f^{\prime }=-2A\eta /(3D)$, so $f=(A/(3D))({\eta }_N^2-{\eta }^2)$. Requiring the total downstream volume flux to be $Q$ fixes the coefficient:Consequentlyfor $|y|<y_N$, with $h=0$ outside. The squared height is a parabolic Barenblatt solution; the height cross-section is a semicircular profile after rescaling its axes. The cross-stream volume flux vanishes at the edges even though the height slope becomes singular there. The profile describes the outer lubrication theory region, not a resolved microscopic front.

Near the point source the two horizontal dimensions are comparable, say $\ell$. Upstream spreading arrests where outward gravity-driven volume flux balances downstream shear-driven volume flux:Eliminating $h_{\ast }$ givesThis is a scaling estimate, not a determination of a numerical prefactor. The associated depth is $h_{\ast }\sim (\mu Q/(\Delta \rho g){)}^{1/4}$. The same horizontal scale is obtained by setting $y_N\sim x$ in the downstream similarity solution, confirming where that solution fails.

For the line source the steady volume flux per unit width is $q=A{h}^2-D{h}^3{h}_x$. On the downstream constant-height branch, $q=Q_{2d}$ gives $h_d^2=Q_{2d}/A$. Upstream there is no net flux through the finite nose, so $q=0$. Thus $h{h}_x=A/D$, and continuity of height at the source givesThe line-source upstream reach under imposed shear is thereforeIn the upstream part, shear-driven and gravity-driven volume fluxes cancel. The volume flux per unit width jumps by exactly $Q_{2d}$ at the source. As in the point-source profile, the square-root nose is a formal outer solution with an unresolved steep front; its finite upstream reach follows from flux balance, not from assuming a small slope all the way to the nose.