I am trying to work through a paper Instability in Parallel Flows Revisited by Friedlander and Howard, and there are a couple steps in the beginning that I do not understand. I apologize in advance for being long-winded, but I want to be candid.

Consider a steady two-dimensional parallel-shear incompressible flow $$\nabla\cdot u=0,$$ $$u\cdot\nabla u=-\nabla p+\frac{1}{Re}\Delta u+\frac{1}{Re}f$$ for $u=(U(y),0)$, pressure $p$ and (steady) force density $f=(h(y),0)$. If we consider a (incompressible) perturbation of this base flow $\tilde{u}=u+w$ (and $\tilde{p}=p+q$), then when plugging $\tilde{u},\tilde{p}$ into the incompressible NSE and dropping the quadratic term, we have the linearized equations for the perturbed flow $w=(w_1,w_2)$ as $$\nabla\cdot w=0,$$ $$\partial_t w+U\partial_x w+(U'(y)w_2,0)=\nabla q+\frac{1}{Re}\Delta w.$$ Next, taking the curl ($\nabla^\perp\cdot(v_1,v_2)=\partial_y v_1-\partial_x v_2$) of this equation, along with sufficient smoothness so derivatives commute, we have $$\partial_t(\nabla^\perp\cdot w)+U(y)\partial_x (\nabla^\perp\cdot w)+\partial_y(U'(y)w_2)=\frac{1}{Re}\Delta (\nabla^\perp\cdot w).$$ At this point, by incompressibility we can switch to using the stream function for $w$, calling it $\phi$, writing $\nabla^\perp\cdot w=\Delta \phi$, and renaming in the last equation $w_2=-\partial_x\phi$, we should achieve the equation for the perturbed stream function as $$\partial_t\Delta\phi+U(y)\partial_x\Delta\phi-\left[U'(y)\partial^2_{xy}\phi+U''(y)\partial_x\phi\right]=\frac{1}{Re}\Delta^2\phi.$$

My first question involves the bracketed terms: in the paper, they present the linearized stream function equation as $$\partial_t\Delta\phi+U(y)\partial_x\Delta\phi-U''(y)\partial_x\phi=\frac{1}{Re}\Delta^2\phi,$$ where the $-U'(y)\partial^2_{xy}\phi$ term seems to be omitted. Have I missed something completely obvious, or have they made an assumption about $\phi$ (common enough to not be mentioned in the paper)?

I have worked through the derivation a couple times now, and always seem to be getting the "extra term" from the product rule...

For my second question, more of a soft question, the authors proceed to provide motivation for deriving the Orr-Sommerfeld equation by suggesting $\phi$ be of the form $$\phi=\Psi(y)e^{i\alpha(x-ct)}$$ Is there an intuitive reason for the motivation behind this ansatz? This assumption seems common in linear stability analyses, but I haven't come across any reasoning behind it. Obviously it works, but is there a physical interpretation of this "travelling phase" perturbation?


First compare your derivation to the following. Consider the Navier-Stokes equation with the plane symmetric ansatz, which reduces to $v = (v_1,v_2)$ solving $$ \partial_t v + (v\cdot \nabla)v + \nabla p = \epsilon \triangle v $$ (We ignore the external force for now, since we are only concerned with the linearized equation.) Taking the two-dimensional curl of $v$ we have the vorticity equation $$\tag{V} \partial_t \omega + (v \cdot\nabla)\omega = \epsilon \triangle \omega $$ using, in its derivation, the incompressibility assumption. The stream function satisfies $$\tag{1} \triangle \phi = \omega $$ and $$\tag{2} v = w + (\partial_2 \phi, - \partial_1 \phi) $$ where $w$ is both divergence free and curl free. This $w$ corresponds to the freedom of replacing $\phi\mapsto \phi + \psi$ where $\psi$ is a harmonic function so doesn't change (1).

Plugging into (V) we arrive at the equation for stream function $$ \tag{S} \partial_t \triangle\phi + (w\cdot \nabla) \triangle\phi + (\nabla\phi)\wedge(\nabla\triangle \phi) = \epsilon \triangle^2 \phi $$

Now write $\phi = \phi_0 + \tilde{\phi}$, where $\phi_0$ satisfies that $\triangle \phi_0 = U'$ (the stream function corresponding to the background solution) and that $w$ is defined so that $(U,0) = w + (\partial_2 \phi_0, -\partial_1\phi_0)$, we see that the linearized equation is exactly as you quoted:

$$\tag{SL} \partial_t \triangle \tilde{\phi} + U \partial_x \triangle \tilde{\phi} - U'' \partial_x \tilde{\phi} = \epsilon \triangle^2\tilde{\phi} $$

So what's the difference? The key difference is in the phrase "linearized vorticity equation" on page 2 of the article you mentioned. Converting from velocity to vorticity you are losing a bit of information! The vorticity only captures the curl part of the velocity, and the curl-free part is left un-prescribed! So while you considered "perturbations of velocity" from which you derived the "perturbations of vorticity", the article starts from considering "perturbations of vorticity"; and this additional degree of freedom allows you to essentially assume that the quantity "$\partial_y w_2$" in your computation vanishes.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much for your thoughtful response. What you've said makes sense. I awarded the bounty, though I am still curious what the motivation behind choosing $\phi=\Psi(y)e^{ia(x-ct)}$. Is there a nice intuitive connection between this ansatz and why it works? $\endgroup$ Feb 3 '16 at 0:38
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @charlestoncrabb: "why it works" is basically answered by "you plug it in and see what happens". The motivation behind the choice is that parallel shear flow can be imagined to be a flow between two plates, where the fluid is flowing in the $x$ direction with velocity depending on the $y$ direction only. If you add a perturbation, you sort of intuitively expect the perturbation to be carried down stream in a traveling wave. So a first order approximation is precisely of the form $\Psi(y) \exp (i \alpha (x - ct))$. (A traveling wave solution more generally should depend on $f(x-ct)$ for $\endgroup$ Feb 3 '16 at 14:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ some arbitrary function $f$ [e.g. the case of traveling solitons]. But if you expect wave like behaviour than it is natural to postulate that $f$ takes the form of $\exp i \alpha$ and see what happens.) $\endgroup$ Feb 3 '16 at 14:15

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.