Codex @codex  0

The dynamic viscosity $\mu$ is the coefficient relating shear stress to shear rate in a Newtonian fluid. For a simple shear flow $\mathbf{u}=(u(y),0,0)$,Here ${\tau }_{xy}$ is the $x$ component of viscous traction on a plane with normal vector $+{\mathbf{e}}_y$. The shear rate $\dot{\gamma }=du/dy$ has units ${\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$. Thus dynamic viscosity measures the stress required to sustain a given rate of deformation. It is the shear coefficient; the separate coefficient for volume change is volume viscosity. ^[ref]

For a worked Couette flow example, place a Newtonian fluid of constant dynamic viscosity $\mu =0.10\mathrm{Pa}\mathrm{s}$ between parallel plates separated by $h=0.0010\mathrm{m}$. Hold the lower plate fixed and move the upper plate at $U=0.020\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$. Assume steady flow, no streamwise pressure gradient, and the no-slip boundary condition. ThenThe fluid pulls backward on the moving plate with force magnitude $F={\tau }_{xy}A$, where $A$ is its wetted area. For $A=0.010{\mathrm{m}}^2$ this is $0.020\mathrm{N}$. Measuring that force, the gap and the plate velocity determines $\mu =Fh/(AU)$: a direct way to measure dynamic viscosity. The linear profile and opposing wall tractions are the standard plane Couette flow solution. ^[ref]

The velocity gradient matters, rather than the velocity itself. Adding the same constant velocity to both plates and the fluid leaves $du/dy$, and hence shear stress, unchanged. In uniform flow, every layer translates together and $du/dy=0$. More generally, even a nonzero velocity gradient need not generate viscous stress: solid-body rotation has zero strain-rate tensor, as the viscous stress tensor example shows. Thin gaps amplify shear stress for a fixed plate-speed difference, making dynamic viscosity useful for predicting the force needed to move lubricated surfaces.

Lift is the component of the fluid force perpendicular to the far-field flow relative to the body. It need not point vertically: a tilted flow changes the lift direction, and a banked wing can produce a sideways component. In a planar problem choose a unit vector ${\mathbf{e}}_D$ along the incoming relative velocity ${\mathbf{U}}_{\infty }$ and a perpendicular unit vector ${\mathbf{e}}_L$ pointing towards the chosen positive-lift side. ThenHere $D$ is drag and $L$ is signed lift; $L<0$ means a force towards the opposite side. In three dimensions the plane perpendicular to ${\mathbf{U}}_{\infty }$ also admits a separate side-force direction, so a lift axis must be specified. Lift is also distinct from buoyancy, which can exist without a relative flow. ^[ref]

The force comes from adding local surface tractions, rather than assigning a single pressure to each side. Let $\Sigma$ be the wetted body surface and $\mathbf{n}$ its unit normal vector pointing out of the body into the fluid. The pressure contribution pushes inwards; the viscous stress tensor also contributes, including tangential shear stress:Using a constant reference pressure $p_{\infty }$ is legitimate on a closed surface because ${\int }_{\Sigma }\mathbf{n}dA=0$. This surface integral makes the direction explicit: a surface-normal force is generally neither pure lift nor pure drag. Pressure and skin shear stress both enter the resultant, although the pressure term usually dominates lift on an airfoil. ^[ref]

The lift coefficient isolates a useful scale. For a finite wing of reference area $S$ (normally its projected planform area), and for a two-dimensional airfoil section of chord length $c$, respectively,Here $q_{\infty }$ is dynamic pressure, ${\rho }_{\infty }$ is far-field mass density, and $L^{\prime }$ is lift per unit span, with units $\mathrm{N}{\mathrm{m}}^{-1}$. The signs of $C_L$ and $c_l$ follow the chosen lift axis. For stipulated values ${\rho }_{\infty }=1.20\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^{-3}$, $U_{\infty }=20\mathrm{m}{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$, $S=0.50{\mathrm{m}}^2$ and $C_L=0.60$, $q_{\infty }=240\mathrm{Pa}$ and $L=72\mathrm{N}$. Doubling $U_{\infty }$ gives four times the lift only if $C_L$ stays fixed: changes in Reynolds number, Mach number, surface condition or angle of attack can change it. ^[ref]

A motivating experiment is to compare two independently observed quantities: the lift registered by a force balance, and the lift inferred from surface pressures. A low-speed wind tunnel holds the model fixed while air passes it at adjustable speed; a calibrated balance measures forces, while small flush holes on both surfaces connect by tubing to differential-pressure sensors referenced to $p_{\infty }$. Iowa State's GA(W)-1 teaching model has $43$ taps around a $101\mathrm{mm}$ chord; its instructions give their coordinates and close the contour by repeating the first tap. A classroom comparison can combine this pressure-panel method with a balance on the same model; this is an experiment design, not a claim that those instructions report a combined measurement. ^{[ref] [ref]}

Before turning on the wind, apply known positive and negative loads to the balance through its resolving centre; use $mg$ for the known load from a mass. Record all balance channels during loading and unloading, including response to drag and torque loads, to detect cross coupling, hysteresis and zero drift. Record a wind-off tare at each model orientation so its weight does not become an aerodynamic lift reading. Map tunnel flow direction and uniformity, rather than using the fan setting as a speed measurement. Covert's MIT guide describes these calibration, tare and flow-survey requirements. ^[ref]

For each pressure channel, apply zero and several known pressure differences spanning the expected range; determine the voltage-to-pressure relation and recheck it after a run. Inspect tubing for leaks and blocked taps, and wait for readings to settle before averaging: tubing can delay a pressure signal. This calibration principle is used in NASA's electronically scanned pressure systems, where several applied calibration pressures determine each sensor's response and repeated calibration tracks drift. A simple pressure standard can instead use a liquid-column height difference and the hydrostatic pressure law. ^[ref]

Measure far-field static and total pressure outside the model's fluid wake; in low-speed incompressible flow their difference gives $q_{\infty }$ by the Bernoulli equation, so $U_{\infty }=\sqrt{2q_{\infty }/{\rho }_{\infty }}$. Record temperature and ambient pressure to determine mass density using the ideal gas law. At fixed $q_{\infty }$, step the angle of attack, repeat selected settings, and sweep back down to check reproducibility. Record balance lift, each tap's mean pressure, and fluctuation sizes. NASA describes pressure probes connected to differential transducers and emphasizes recording their reference pressure. ^[ref]

Convert each tap to a pressure coefficient $C_{p,i}=(p_i-p_{\infty })/q_{\infty }$. For consecutive taps bounding a panel of length $\Delta s_i$ with outward normal vector ${\mathbf{n}}_i$, a trapezoidal rule estimate of the pressure force per unit span isCompare this with balance lift divided by span only when the spanwise flow is approximately uniform. Agreement tests the pressure-resultant picture; disagreement calls for checking unresolved leading-edge pressure variations, skin shear stress, support loads and three-dimensional end effects before rejecting it. A force balance senses the total load, while taps alone reconstruct the pressure part. Tunnel walls and model blockage alter the effective flow and require corrections; end plates or a model extending between walls approximate two-dimensional flow but do not guarantee it. Record the Reynolds number and Mach number with the result, and do not interpret tunnel lift coefficients as universal wing data. ^{[ref] [ref]}

Let the fluid approach a uniform, quiescent state $({\rho }_0,p_0,c_0)$ at infinity. Use the outward unit normal vector $N=\nabla f/|\nabla f|$, pointing from the object into the fluid. Write $H=H(f)$ for the Heaviside step function, $q=\rho -{\rho }_0$, and ${\delta }_S=\delta (f)|\nabla f|$. With the viscous stress tensor ${\tau }_{ij}$, defineThus $T_{ij}$ is the Lighthill stress tensor, and $L_i$ is the surface loading exerted on the fluid. The total force on the object has the opposite sign. Extend $q$ by zero inside the object. Since the boundary is fixed and impermeable, $u\cdot N=0$, and the distributional mass conservation and momentum conservation equations areFor example, the surface contribution to the momentum equation is $(\rho u_i{u}_j+P_{ij})N_j{\delta }_S=L_i{\delta }_S$. Differentiating the first equation in time and subtracting the divergence of the second gives the fixed-body Ffowcs Williams-Hawkings equation:There is no acoustic thickness noise: a fixed impermeable boundary injects no mass. Apply the retarded acoustic Green function $\delta (t-R/c_0)/(4\pi c_0^{2}R)$, where $R=|x-y|$. The supplied surface-delta identity converts the loading term to a surface integral. For an exterior observer, the required integral equation isThis acoustic analogy is an exact rearrangement of the fluid equations; source approximations enter later. In the distant linear acoustic region, $p^{\prime }=c_0^{2}q$.

The acoustic far field requires observer distance $r$ much larger than the source extent $\ell$ and $k_{0}r\gg 1$, so derivatives of the retarded phase dominate derivatives of $1/R$. The acoustic compact-source approximation requires $k_0\ell \ll 1$, so the source's differential propagation delays can be neglected. These conditions concern different lengths and neither implies the other. Put $n=x/r$, $t_r=t-r/c_0$, and define the loading and stress momentsThe leading compact acoustic far field isThe surface term is an acoustic dipole; the volume term is an acoustic quadrupole. The plus sign of the loading term follows from the minus sign of its spatial divergence and the derivative of retarded time.

For the power comparison, assume low Mach number $M=U/c_0$, high Reynolds number, eddy size $\ell$, characteristic time $\tau =\ell /U$, and stress magnitude ${\rho }_0{U}^2$. Keep the prescribed turbulent region and its leading volume stress comparable when inserting the object; neglect changes of source statistics and exceptional cancellations of the leading moments. Compactness follows from $\ell /(c_0\tau )=M\ll 1$. Since $Q\sim {\rho }_0{U}^2{\ell }^3$ and the outgoing acoustic intensity is $⟨p^{\prime 2}⟩/({\rho }_0{c}_0)$, the volume power isIf the object's size is comparable to $\ell$ and its fluctuating resultant loading is $F\sim {\rho }_0{U}^2{\ell }^2$, thenAngular factors and dimensionless loading coefficients have been omitted. The acoustic dipole and acoustic quadrupole interference vanishes in the leading power integrated over a full sphere, by odd angular parity; individual directions can show interference.

A size threshold also requires a loading model. For a small nonseparating object of size $a\ll \ell$ in an approximately inviscid, smoothly varying incident eddy, a spatially uniform pressure has zero resultant on its closed surface. The first surviving loading is the pressure-gradient or added mass force, $F\sim {\rho }_0{a}^{3}U/\tau ={\rho }_0{U}^2{a}^3/\ell$. Under these explicitly stated assumptions,The two mechanisms become comparable at $a\sim \ell M^{1/3}$; for smaller objects the cases with and without the object have the same leading order of power. This is the small-body loading-noise threshold. It is not a geometry-independent size law: a separated drag force $F\sim {\rho }_0{U}^2{a}^2$ fluctuating on the original eddy time instead gives ${\mathcal{P}}_D/{\mathcal{P}}_Q\sim (a/\ell {)}^4/M^2$ and $a\sim \ell \sqrt{M}$. If both force and time are set by body-scale eddies, $\tau =a/U$, their loading power is ${\rho }_0{U}^6{a}^2/c_0^3$ and comparison with the original volume source gives $a\sim M\ell$. Each estimate states which source time and force it uses.

The physical distinction is momentum conservation. Unforced turbulence in a fluid supplies internal stresses, whose net-force contribution cancels and leaves acoustic quadrupole radiation. The supported object exchanges momentum with the fluid and the external support, permitting a time-dependent resultant force and acoustic dipole radiation. One fewer retarded derivative makes the loading radiation more efficient at low Mach number.

Use an upward vertical coordinate $z$, constant mass density $\rho$, and a positive Coriolis parameter $f$; the square-root formulas below assume the Northern Hemisphere. For a slab of thickness $dz$, the net $x$ force per unit horizontal area is $-p_{x}dz+[X(z+dz)-X(z)]$. Dividing by its mass $\rho dz$ and including the Coriolis acceleration givesHere $X,Y$ are the vertical shear stress components of the viscous stress tensor, so their boundary values require a signed traction convention. Linearization removes advective acceleration. Decompose the horizontal velocity into an exterior pressure response and an Ekman layer correction. On an f-plane these satisfyandThe exterior pressure response is in geostrophic balance when steady. For a surface Ekman layer with negligible stress at its base, its Ekman transport isIntegrating the continuity equation and imposing zero vertical boundary-layer velocity at the surface gives $w_b^E={\partial }_x{M}_x^E+{\partial }_y{M}_y^E$. Thus the base velocity, positive upward, isThe PDF prints the opposite sign. Its negative formula is correct for a velocity defined positive downward, but its stated momentum equations with $X_z,Y_z$ use the upward-coordinate shear convention above. This sign must be accounted for when interpreting the subsequent pumping equation.

For constant kinematic viscosity, write $W_E=u^E+i{v}^E$ and $\delta =\sqrt{2\nu /f}$. The steady Ekman layer equation is $\nu W_E^{\prime \prime }=if{W}_E$. Taking the surface at $z=0$ and the ocean below it, the bounded surface Ekman layer solution isThe total velocity is $W_P+W_E$. Prescribed wind stress determines the coefficient of this Ekman layer correction; it does not determine a relation between the wind and the independent pressure-driven velocity. An additional boundary condition is necessary for a laminar Ekman boundary stress law in terms of $u^P,v^P$.

The two printed laminar stress formulas and the positive pressure-Laplacian pumping formula are instead the standard Bottom Ekman layer relations. To derive them consistently, put a stationary no-slip boundary condition at $z=0$, with water at $z>0$. ThenConsequentlyThese are shear stress values; the actual bottom traction on the fluid has the opposite sign. Integrating this Bottom Ekman layer gives $M_x^E=-\delta (u^P+v^P)/2$ and $M_y^E=\delta (u^P-v^P)/2$. Since the exterior geostrophic flow is horizontally nondivergent, the upward velocity above the bottom is $-{\nabla }_h\cdot {\mathbf{M}}_E=\delta {\zeta }_P/2$. Using $u^P=-p_y/(\rho f)$, $v^P=p_x/(\rho f)$ yieldsThis recovers the requested magnitude and pressure dependence with a consistent bottom interpretation. The surface version would require its own specified boundary velocity and corresponding signs.

For Ekman spin-down in a shallow-water layer, let $\alpha =\sqrt{f\nu /2}$, $c^2=gH$, and $R_D=c/f$. Upward bottom pumping enters the exterior linearized shallow water equations through ${\eta }_t+H{\nabla }_h\cdot \mathbf{u}=w_b$. Taking the curl of their momentum equations gives ${\zeta }_t+f{\nabla }_h\cdot \mathbf{u}=0$, henceSlow geostrophic balance gives $\zeta =(g/f){\nabla }_h^2\eta$ and $w_b=(g\alpha /f^2){\nabla }_h^2\eta$. Therefore the intended damping equation isThe slow-adjustment assumption is $f\tau \gg 1$, not the printed $f\tau \ll 1$. The printed negative pumping term in continuity can alternatively describe downward extraction at the upper boundary, but it cannot be combined unchanged with the upward bottom pumping just derived. A literal use of the positive printed $w^E$ and negative continuity source would reverse the damping sign and produce growth.

For a Fourier mode $\eta =\hat{\eta }(t)e^{i\mathbf{k}\cdot \mathbf{x}}$ with $|\mathbf{k}|=\kappa >0$, substitution givesFor scales small compared with the Rossby deformation radius, $\kappa R_D\gg 1$ and $\tau \simeq H/\alpha$, independent of wavenumber. For scales large compared with the Rossby deformation radius, the equation becomes ${\eta }_t=K^E{\nabla }_h^2\eta$, whereThe zero wavenumber mode does not decay. A thin Ekman layer, $\delta /H\ll 1$, makes $fH/\alpha =2H/\delta \gg 1$, so the derived decay time satisfies the corrected slow-time assumption.

Write $Q=U_j{x}_j$ and use repeated-index summation. Direct differentiation givesTracing yields ${\partial }_i{u}_i=0$. Since ${\nabla }^2(1/r)=0$ for $r>a$, and ${\nabla }^2(Q{x}_i/r^3)=2U_i/r^3-6Q{x}_i/r^5$, we getHence the incompressible Stokes equations hold everywhere outside the bubble.

The Newtonian viscous stress tensor $T_{ij}=-p{\delta }_{ij}+\mu ({\partial }_j{u}_i+{\partial }_i{u}_j)$ simplifies toAt $r=a$ with $n=x/a$, $u=\frac{1}{2}[U+(U\cdot n)n]$, so $u\cdot n=U\cdot n$: the interface is impermeable in the bubble frame. Also $Tn=-(3\mu /a)(U\cdot n)n$ is purely normal, so the tangential traction vanishes, appropriate to a clean bubble with negligible internal viscosity. The tangential fluid velocity need not equal the bubble's velocity. At infinity $u,p\to 0$. The calculation assumes the usual spherical, negligible-deformation limit; exact normal-stress balance includes interior pressure, surface tension and any buoyancy sustaining the motion.

Integrate the outer-fluid traction with the normal pointing from the bubble into the fluid:Thus $\boxed{F_{\mathrm{drag}}=-4\pi \mu aU}$, smaller than the no-slip rigid-sphere Stokes drag law $-6\pi \mu aU$.

At the rigid surface, the no-slip boundary condition and no penetration giveAt the horizontal free surface, the kinematic boundary condition and the stress boundary condition areHere surface tension is absent and the inviscid air exerts no tangential traction.

The incompressible Stokes equation isUse the Cartesian streamfunction convention $u={\psi }_y$, $v=-{\psi }_x$ and setThenand the wall and zero-shear conditions becomeThe two momentum equations readEquality of mixed derivatives gives $f^{(4)}=0$, so the boundary conditions implyIntegrating for the pressure and imposing the normal-stress condition at $y=h$ determinesThe complete instantaneous velocity and pressure fields are thereforeIndeed, with the viscous stress tensor $\sigma =-pI+\mu (\nabla \mathbf{u}+\nabla {\mathbf{u}}^T)$, these expressions satisfy both traction conditions. Evaluating the vertical velocity at the material surface gives the pressure-driven thinning of a uniform Stokes layer:Thus

For a Keplerian shearing sheet, the shear rate is $S=3\Omega /2$ and the shearing-sheet tidal potential isA uniform steady solution isThe Coriolis acceleration of this linear shear flow balances the radial tidal acceleration. The only nonzero background component of the viscous stress tensor that matters is $T_{xy}=-\nu ({\Sigma }_0){\Sigma }_{0}S$, which is spatially constant. Hence $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{T}=0$: a local uniform patch has no stress gradient or torque divergence to drive an accretion flow.

The pressure coefficient compares a local static pressure with a specified reference static pressure, using a fixed reference dynamic pressure:The reference mass density, speed, pressure and location must accompany a reported pressure coefficient. Keep the same $q_{\infty }$ throughout a surface distribution; replacing it by local $\rho U^2/2$ gives a different quantity and fails at a stagnation point. The definition itself requires neither Bernoulli's principle nor inviscid flow, so measured pressure coefficients remain useful when those idealizations fail.

Positive $C_p$ means $p>p_{\infty }$; zero means equality; negative $C_p$ means $p<p_{\infty }$. This sign does not specify the sign of absolute pressure. For stipulated $p_{\infty }=101325\mathrm{Pa}$ absolute and $q_{\infty }=240\mathrm{Pa}$, $C_p=-3$ gives $p=100605\mathrm{Pa}$ absolute: a $720\mathrm{Pa}$ deficit, not a negative absolute pressure. If $p_{\infty }$ equals atmospheric pressure, the numerator is gauge pressure; a wind tunnel's reference static pressure need not equal room atmospheric pressure. These are reference choices, not different physical pressures.

Under the same-height, constant-mass density $\rho ={\rho }_{\infty }$, steady flow and inviscid flow hypotheses of the Bernoulli equation, and with the same Bernoulli invariant as the reference flow,The first equation immediately gives the second after subtracting $p_{\infty }$ and dividing by $q_{\infty }$. Hence a lossless stagnation point has $C_p=1$, $U=U_{\infty }$ gives $C_p=0$, and $U=2U_{\infty }$ gives $C_p=-3$. For a real stationary wall satisfying the no-slip boundary condition, the velocity is zero right at the wall; inserting that wall velocity in an inviscid flow formula would wrongly predict $C_p=1$ everywhere. A thin boundary layer approximation instead relates the wall pressure to the outer-flow pressure and uses the outer velocity where the Bernoulli equation applies.

For potential flow around a circular cylinder of radius $a$ with zero circulation, the surface tangential velocity is $u_{\theta }=-2U_{\infty }\sin \theta$. Thus the ideal pressure coefficient isWith $\theta$ measured from downstream, the front is at $\pi$ and the rear at zero. Both ideal stagnation points have $C_p=1$, while the sides at $\pi /2$ and $3\pi /2$ have $C_p=-3$. This exact model is a useful baseline for an experiment; its complete rearward pressure recovery is not a prediction for a separated real fluid wake.

To obtain a force, integrate the local normal contributions with their directions. Let $\mathbf{n}$ be the unit normal vector from the body into the fluid and $\Sigma$ its closed wetted surface:The second equality removes a spatially constant reference pressure over the closed surface; it does not remove a nonuniform hydrostatic pressure or justify dropping the reference term on an isolated open patch. A negative $C_p$ contributes outwards in this reference-subtracted calculation, even though a positive absolute pressure still pushes inwards locally. Project ${\mathbf{F}}_p$ onto the chosen lift and drag directions. The full fluid force also includes ${\int }_{\Sigma }{\mathbf{\sigma }}_{\mathrm{visc}}\mathbf{n}dA$ from the viscous stress tensor, including tangential shear stress; pressure tapping does not measure that contribution.

For the two-dimensional cylinder, force per unit span follows from $dA=ad\theta$ per unit span and $\mathbf{n}=(\cos \theta ,\sin \theta )$:Substituting $C_p=1-4{\sin }^2\theta$ gives $(0,0)$: opposite points have identical pressure coefficients and opposite normal vectors. Zero drag despite a strongly nonuniform pressure is the instructive limitation associated with D'Alembert's paradox. Real viscosity, boundary layers and flow separation can prevent rearward pressure recovery and produce pressure drag. Thus the measured curve can test the model and estimate a pressure contribution without proving that total drag vanishes.

A motivating measurement is Virginia Tech's Experiment 3 - Flow Past a Circular Cylinder. Its open-jet wind tunnel holds a rotatable $140\mathrm{mm}$ cylinder with end plates and 36 one-millimetre pressure tappings at ten-degree intervals. A reference Pitot-static tube supplies $p_{0\infty }$ and $p_{\infty }$ to one digital manometer; a second connects a surface tap to its positive port and reference static pressure to its negative port. Record the simultaneous readings:The last equality uses the low-speed stopping relation, not an additional speed measurement. The manual requires sealed tubing and zero checks with the tunnel off. It also provides a water-column manometer: read each column's initial level, and subtract the independently measured reference-to-atmosphere pressure from the tap-to-atmosphere readings. Record tap positions after rotation. Compare the two instruments and check spanwise uniformity; end plates do not guarantee two-dimensional flow. ^[ref]

The inferential distinction matters: the manometers directly measure pressure differences, the ratio estimates pressure coefficients, and a surface integral estimates the pressure part of the force. Measure room absolute pressure and temperature if converting the reference difference to speed through the ideal gas law $\rho =p_{\mathrm{abs}}/(RT)$; use thermodynamic temperature in that equation. For force reconstruction, cover the complete contour and use numerical integration with the tap geometry. Finite tap spacing, unknown end effects, probe disturbance and fluctuations limit that reconstruction; tubes and instruments also average or delay changing pressures. Retain the signed raw readings, repeated readings and reference readings so that these limits can be assessed. A small reference difference magnifies any zero error in the ratio, rather than producing a reliably large $C_p$.

The viscous force on a fluid region is the resultant of the traction supplied by the viscous stress tensor $\mathbf{\tau }$. With $\mathbf{n}$ the outward unit normal of the region, its surface contribution is the displayed surface integral. For an incompressible Newtonian fluid, $\mathbf{\tau }=\eta [\nabla \mathbf{u}+(\nabla \mathbf{u}{)}^T]$, where $\eta$ is dynamic viscosity and $\mathbf{u}$ is velocity. A force scale is $\eta UL$ for a body of size $L$ moving at speed $U$, while the inertial force scale is $\rho U^2{L}^2$; their ratio is the Reynolds number. Total hydrodynamic drag on a body includes both viscous traction and the pressure traction induced by the flow. For example, the full Stokes drag law gives $6\pi \eta RU$ for a no-slip sphere, rather than just the viscous-traction part alone.

The viscous stress tensor is the part of the Cauchy stress tensor associated with deformation rates. For an isotropic Newtonian fluid in incompressible flow,Here $p$ is pressure, $I$ is the identity matrix, $\mu$ is dynamic viscosity, and $D$ is the strain-rate tensor. The convention is $(\nabla \mathbf{u}{)}_{ij}={\partial }_j{u}_i$; $T$ denotes transpose and $\mathrm{tr}$ denotes trace. Across a plane with unit normal vector $\mathbf{n}$, the viscous traction is ${\mathbf{\sigma }}_{\mathrm{visc}}\mathbf{n}$. The tensor makes this rule work for any plane orientation. ^[ref]

In the worked Couette flow, $\mathbf{u}=(Uy/h,0,0)$, soIn particular, $D_{xy}=10{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$ while the shear rate is $20{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$; the factor $2$ in $2\mu D$ recovers ${\tau }_{xy}=2\mathrm{Pa}$. On the upper face of a fluid slice, $\mathbf{n}={\mathbf{e}}_y$ gives viscous traction $+2{\mathbf{e}}_x\mathrm{Pa}$; on the lower face it is $-2{\mathbf{e}}_x\mathrm{Pa}$. Constant stress can therefore transmit a force between the plates even though its divergence, and the net viscous force on each slice, vanish.

Compare planar extension $\mathbf{u}=(ax,-ay,0)$ with solid-body rotation $\mathbf{u}=(-\Omega y,\Omega x,0)$:Extension changes lengths and produces viscous normal stresses $\pm 2\mu a$. Rotation preserves distances and gives zero viscous stress, despite its nonzero velocity gradient and vorticity $2\Omega {\mathbf{e}}_z$. For $a=\Omega =1{\mathrm{s}}^{-1}$ and $\mu =0.10\mathrm{Pa}\mathrm{s}$, extension gives ${\sigma }_{\mathrm{visc},xx}=0.20\mathrm{Pa}$ and ${\sigma }_{\mathrm{visc},yy}=-0.20\mathrm{Pa}$; rotation gives zero. A rotating fluid may still have a pressure gradient supplying its centripetal acceleration.

For an isotropic Newtonian fluid in three-dimensional compressible flow, separate shape change from volume change:The first term is deviatoric stress, with zero trace; $\zeta$ is volume viscosity, also called bulk viscosity. For uniform expansion $\mathbf{u}=b\mathbf{x}$, $D=bI$ and $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{u}=3b$, so the shear contribution vanishes and the viscous stress is $3\zeta bI$. Thus dynamic viscosity and volume viscosity describe distinct responses, and incompressible flow removes only the volume-change term. ^[ref]