The Present Status of the Controversy Regarding the Bulk Viscosity of Fluids Author(s): C.

Truesdell Source: Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences, Vol. 226, No. 1164 (Oct. 21, 1954), pp. 59-65 Published by: The Royal Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/99594 . Accessed: 15/08/2011 11:25
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The Royal Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences.

http://www.jstor.org

The controversyregarding the bulk viscosity of fluids

THE PRESENT STATUS OF THE CONTROVERSY REGARDINGTHE BULK VISCOSITYOF FLUIDS

59

BY C. TRUESDELL

Graduate Institute AppliedMathematics, Indiana University, for Indiana Bloomington,

(This survey was communicatedby ProfessorTruesdellwho was unable to attend the Meeting;it is reproducedbelow as a postscript to the record of the Discussion Meeting.) Some years ago it was common for physicists to take the Stokes relation as obviously true. During the past two or three years many have come to hold the opposite view and to regard the Stokes relation as obviously false except for monatomic gases. Eight years of discomfort about the Stokes relation have brought me the conviction that nothing on either side of the argument is obvious. In most of what follows, the word viscosity shall refer only to the two coefficients ,a and ,a' which occur in Poisson's dynamical equation, which is based upon the formnula

ti = (-p+It'dk) di + 2d

(1)

for the stress tensor ti as a linear function of the rate of deformationtensor di. By their definition, these viscosities are for each fluid constants or functions of the thermodynamic state; they cannot depend upon the rate of deformation,the frequency of the motion, etc., for otherwise the linearity of the basic equation (1) would become meaningless. Thus the controversy concerningbulk viscosity 4u/ -Cb + separates into the following parts: I. What is the effect of the value of ,' + 3a upon solutions of the classical equations of fluid dynamics? II. In physical fluids which obey these equations, how is ,u'? ,u to be measured? III. Which physical fluids fail to obey the classical equations? IV. What mathematical theory is appropriateto these fluids? In these theories is there a quantity analogous to It'+ -a and, if there is, how does it affect the solutions and how is it to be measured? Beginning with the first part, we find only three existing groups of solutions which seem to be useful; plane shock-layer solutions, infinitesimal wave solutions, and second-ordercirculatorysolutions. It is strange that until recently the sloppy mathematics used in this field gave rise to many unfounded rumours,so that there was controversyover even what the theory itself predicted. Now Gilbarg&Paolucci (I953) have solved the plane shock-layer problem exactly and completely. Their result shows (1) that shock thicknesses computed earlier by so-called approximate methods are much smaller than those given by the rigorous theory employing the physically appropriate dependence of viscosity upon temperature; and (2) that large enough bulk viscosity yields arbitrarilythick shocks.

60

C. Truesdell (Discussion Meeting)

The position, relative to the exact theory, of solutions of the linearized equations for infinitesimal waves remains to be established mathematically; however, there are mathematical reasons for expecting it to be proved satisfactory in the end. For the linearized theory itself, I have constructed the exact solution for plane waves (Truesdell I953). As has been known since Stefan and Kirchhoff's basic papers, large enough bulk viscosity yields arbitrarily large initial slope for the absorption curve ('classical absorption coefficient'). Moreover, the frequency range in which this conventional linearization gives a value close to the exact solution is reduced indefinitely as #a'/Itincreases. The high-frequency dispersion is similarly increased. The height and position of the absorption peak varies with the two viscosities and the heat conductivity in a complicated way. It is perhaps in order to mention here that the dispersion at moderate frequencies can be normal rather than, as usual, anomalous. This is the case for parameter values appropriate to mercury and to molten metals, if the Stokes relation be assumed. However, a large bulk viscosity can annihilate this effect. Another interesting conclusion is that the case when the Prandtl number = 4 turns out here to yield results fairly close to the rigorous values for most gases, although in the shock-layer problem this special case has been altogether misleading. The exact solutions for free plane waves (cf. Truesdell I952c), forced or free spherical waves, and shear waves are not yet known, but they should now be not too difficult for a patient person to work out. The solutions for acoustic streaming are more controversial. The attempts of Markham (I952) and Nyborg (I953 a) to work out a systematic perturbation scheme reveal the difficulties usual for second-order effects. One can argue ad infinitum about which terms are small enough to be neglected a priori. The only evidence that can be conclusive here is a mathematical approximation theorem stating precisely the position of solutions of the presumably approximate equations with respect to the corresponding exact solutions. We seem to be far from any such theorem at present, and all existing results on acoustic streaming must be viewed with a wary eye. It is interesting to notice that the only approach to the streaming problem is through hydrodynamics. This puts that group of physicists who deny the correctness of the hydrodynamical theory of absorption and dispersion in the rather odd position of rejecting the first-order hydrodynamic perturbation equations but accepting those of second order. Now for the second question: Which physical fluids obey the equations? It is still widely believed by physicists that few, if any, physical fluids experiencing shocklayer or ultrasonic phenomena behave like the mathematical viscous fluid. Part of this view rests on metaphysical grounds, elsewhere disposed of (Truesdell I953); part rests on misplaced confidence in 'approximate' solutions and on misinformation or lack of information regarding the exact hydrodyrnamical solutions for these problems. The only experimental data on shock thickness are in rough agreement with the hydrodynamical prediction but they are too scant to be conclusive. For ultrasonic absorption and dispersion in rarefied helium, Greenspan (I949, I950) has obtained full confirmation of the hydrodynamical theory over all of a very large range and with an accuracy altogether remarkable for ultrasonics. Thus the non-

The controversy regarding the bulk viscosity of fluids1

61

linear absorption and dispersion predicted by the Navier-Stokes equations and Fourier's law of heat conduction do exist for at least one physical fluid. It has long been suggested that bulk viscosity can be calculated from the results of absorption measurements in the linear range (cf., for example, ? 6 1 A of Truesdell 1952 a; Karim & Rosenhead I952). Such a value is cold comfort indeed unless it can be used to predict some other phenomenon, or, equivalently, unless it agrees fairly wrell with a value obtained from an independent method of measurement. As everyone knows, the mieasurements of Liebermann on streaming revealed such a correlation. In a moment I will show why this agreement may be deceptive. First let me turn to a more immediate question: if 4a'is adjusted so as to make the hydrodynamical theory right for absorption in the linear range, does that theory predict the observed non-linear absorption and in dispersion in liquids and in polyatomic gases at higher frequencies? In other words, can the hydrodynamical theory account for what are usually called 'relaxation affects'? Here I have shown the answer to be 'no' (Truesdell I953). When the bulk viscosity is adjusted so as to make the hydrodynamical formula right in the linear absorption range, in nearly all cases the absorption at higher frequencies then comes out too large: the theoretical absorption curve does not fall away from linearity fast enough. (It is curious that the final reason for rejecting hydrodynamics as the universal and sole basis for the acoustics of fluids should be the very opposite of that which was current for a quarter century!) Against these remarks must be weighed certain Russian results indicating confirmation of the hydrodynamical theory for some highly viscous liquids. This brings us to our third phase with the inescapable conclusion that many ordinary fluids, all the common polyatomic gases being included, do not behave like the classical viscous fluids when subjected to an ultrasonic disturbance. Now for the fourth: What theory is appropriate to these fluids? While there is a good deal of literature attempting to fit the data to visco-elasticity (the usual term among ultrasonic workers is 'complex and frequency-dependent viscosity'), the prospect is not very pleasant, and the various proposals either fail to agree with experiment or else contain so many empirical constants that almost anything can come out. It seems more natural to revert to the ideas, unnecessary to recapitulate here, which gave rise to the 'relaxation theory' originally and to regard our physical fluid as a mixture of two or more components, each of which is a continuous medium diffusing through the rest. Our ibasic departure from the old relaxation theory (at least, most of it) is that we no longer deny the separate existence of viscosity and heat conduction as dissipative mechanisms, nor do we attempt to construct any molecular or quasi-molecular model to evaluate the diffusivity. Such a theory has been formulated by Sakadi (I 94 I) and by Meixner (I 952b). The exact solution of the resulting linearized theory remains to be found. However, Greenspan (1954) has obtained numerical solutions in certain cases and has found agreement between this theory and certain experiments on polyatomic gases (private communication). Thus the prospect is good. Further experiments are necessary.

No test of any of the theoriesis afforded experiments by whichstay within the linear

62

C. Truesdell (Discussion Meeting)

absorption range. In the case of a perfect gas, arbitrarily large values of the Stokes number (the dimensionless frequency variable SP lVw (2)

where VO the Laplacian speed of sound) can be had by simply rarefying the gas is while holding the frequency fixed, since
Sperf. gas =

(3)

For a gas which is not perfect, there must be a similar effect, but no such simple formula can be expected. For most liquids there seems not yet to be any means of performing experiments for moderately large values of S. This is most unfortunate, especially since the results for mercury and for molten metals might be very interesting. What now shall we think of the above-mentioned agreement between the values of bulk viscosity as calculated from absorption and as calculated from streaming? The answer comes from theory. First, Meixner (I 952a) has shown that a wide class of diffusion processes in non-viscous fluid mixtures yield a linear absorption formula just like that for a fluid with a positive bulk viscosity. Secondly, Nyborg (I953 b) has obtained a precisely analogous result for streaming. Thus neither absorption measurements nor streaming measurements, in the linear range, can distinguish between the effects of various possible dissipative mechanisms. That these measurements give roughly the same values for bulk viscosity (and in fact the agreement is rather crude) neither indicates that the physical fluid is obeying the equations of hydrodynamics nor that any one rather than any other dissipative process is occurring. According to this view, bulk viscosity appears as a crude equivalent which we may, but need not, introduce. But the situation is even worse. If pure carbon dioxide, for example, does not obey the hydrodynamical equations when subject to ultrasonic waves or to induce streaming, does it do so in shock phenomena? According to the older view of bulk viscosity, the result of Gilbarg & Paolucci would lead us to expect extremely thick shocks in carbon dioxide. According to the new view, we can have no definite expectation. If carbon dioxide in a shock layer behaves like a mixture, we can at least look for a result from the mixture theory yielding an equivalent bulk viscosity, but then there is no reason to expect its value to equal that of the similar quantity measured in streaming or in absorption. If on the other hand, carbon dioxide in a shock layer behaves like a pure viscous fluid, we have as yet no reason to expect any particular value for its bulk viscosity. Even supposing these three situations to be cleared up, we are nevertheless far from knowing what value to give to the bulk viscosity of carbon dioxide-much less, of air-in a flow past an aerofoil. Actually, the situation is not quite so bad as that. The theoretical results just mentioned refer only to the first-order effects in each case. Exact solutions of the non-linear equations may well reveal important differences. In any case, we must

The controversy regarding the bulk viscosity of fluids

63

determine whether or not the results of the Sakadi-Meixner mixture theory fit experimental data when the bulk viscosity of the mixture is taken as zero. That is, we must find out whether for a given chemically pure fluid apparent bulk viscosity is merely a crude equivalent for some kind of diffusion or whether an accurate theory for that fluid must represent it as a mixture possessing a non-zero bulk viscosity in addition to its diffusivity. Something must be said also about physical fluids which behave neither as pure fluids with linear viscosity nor as mixtures of such fluids. For these, various theories of non-linear viscosity have been proposed, and a great deal of interesting work, both in experiment and in theory, has been done concerning them. While they do not seem to be included in the title of the present discussion, there is the possibility that in fact some of the difficulties regarding apparent bulk viscosity may have something to do with non-linear viscous response. For example, Gilbarg & Paolucci in their fundamental paper have shown that the rather simple theory which I have introduced and called 'Stokesian', in which (1) is generalized by
t9=

(-1

+gf dk) 8t +~fd

+ fdt

dk

(4)

wherefo, fi andf2 are dimensionlessfunctions of adkl/p,,2d1d /p2 #3dkd

d/p3 and

temperature, can yield shock thicknesses far greater than those predicted by the classical theory. In this theory the function ,jtf1 generalizes shear viscosity, the functionfo + 31f generalizes the ratio of bulk viscosity to shear viscosity (cf. Truesdell 1950, ?9), while f2 is a cross-viscosity which modifies the effects Foflboth shear and bulk viscosity and introduces some altogether new phenomena (cf. Truesdell 1952a, chap. V). At first sight we might expect here a means of discriminating between non-linear viscosity and ordinary bulk viscosity, since the non-linear terms do not appear to affect the usual theory of absorption and dispersion. However, some caution is in order: the presence of higher order terms in exact equations may so reduce the range of correctness of solutions obtained from the linearized theory as virtually to destroy it. Here again appears the need for a rigorous treatment of the various perturbation schemes. Everything I have said so far refers to phenomenological theories alone. It is natural to suppose that the kinetic theory can give us much more dependable information. Such must indeed be the case ultimately, but it is not the case today. Beginning with the theory of moderately rarefied monatomic gases, we find four essentially different types of perturbation methods proposed for solving the MaxwellBoltzniann equation: the Hilbert-Enskog-Chapman series, the Jaff6-Keller series, Grad's method of moments, Mott-Smith's method of interpolation. None of these agrees with the others. None has been shown to converge or to be meaningful in any sense. While physical plausibility arguments were formerly advanced for the first of these, in its most extended form (Burnett's equations) its prediction for absorption in helium are now known to be wrong (Greenspan 1949, 1950). (In the case of the shock-layer problem, the results following from Burnett's equations are not significantly different from the exact hydrodynamical results, cf. Zoller (I 95 I), Gilbarg & Paolucci (I953).) For the class of problems in question here, moreover,

64

C. Truesdell (Discussion Meeting)

the results seem to be unduly sensitive to the choice of molecular model. Finally, a distinguished Fellow of the Royal Society lias made some penetrating remarks (Jeffreys I937) which can hardly be interpreted as anything else than doubts that for non-equilibrium states the Maxwell-Boltzmann equation itself is the correct mathematical statement of the physical ideas which constitute the kinetic view of the gaseous state. There is also the possibility that inon-trivial solutions of this equation fail to exist for non-equilibrium states. In the case of a non-linear integrodifferential equation whose physical basis is questionable, doubts concerning existence and convergence are not mere purism. When we come to polyatomic gases, the situation is worse. Every attempt to calculate bulk viscosity from the kinetic theory has been shown to be incomplete or faulty (Truesdell 1952 b). Moreover, there exists no systematic theory, analogous to those just mentioned for monatomic gases. The controversial state of the kinetic theory of liquids need hardly be emphasized. Thus for the immediate future we are not likely to gain any certain information from the kinetic approach to the problem of viscosity. But the substantial progress made recently in various parts of continuum mechanics encourages us to pursue the basic problems concerning viscosity with the patience, the care, and the criticism which exact treatment of the appropriate non-linear field equations requires. (Notes added in proof, August 1954. An extensive experimental study of plane snock profiles in helium and in air has been published by F. D. Sherman, Univ. California (Berkeley) Inst. Eng. Res. Dept. HE-150-122, 24 May 1954. It is not possible to summarize his results without some oversimplification. The problem of interpreting the measurements is difficult. In a sense which Sherman explairns in his publication, he concludes that the predictions of the Navier-Stokes equations are confirmed accurately and in detail for shocks in helium at 1 5 < M < 2, while those from the various kinetic theory approximations are controverted. For air, a bulk viscosity of the same magnitude as obtained from ultrasonic absorption data is required to obtain a similar agreement. At M = 3 70 the experimental results are not satisfactorily predicted by any of the theories with which the author compares them, but he does not attempt comparison with the theory of the Stokesian fluid as worked out by Gilbarg & Paolucci. From these results and those concerning ultrasonic absorption and dispersion cited above it seems to be an inescapable conclusion that none of the methods of approximate solution so far employed in the kinetic theory yields results in accord with experiment; that the best theory now in existence is that following from the Navier-Stokes equations with bulk viscosity or from the two fluid ('relaxation') model with viscosity and heat conduction; and that for rapidly changing conditions of flow these latter theories in turn fail, although some of the phenomenological theories which extend them may succeed. In a note to appear in Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., Wash., Dr D. Morgenstern has proved existence and uniqueness of solution to the Maxwell-Boltzmann equation in the spatially homogeneous case and for Maxwellian molecules. The only restriction on the initial value is that it have a finite mass density, and the solution is

The controversyregarding the bulk viscosity of fluids

65

valid for all time. In a work still in progress Dr Morgenstern has extended the class of molecules for which his method applies. In the case when the distribution is not necessarily uniform in space, he has obtained similar results for an equation related to the Maxwell-Boltzmann equation and equaily a consequence of the usual derivation. For this equation, in which the distribution function for the oncoming molecule is replaced by its average over a small region of space surrounding the receiving molecule, a stronger form of the H-theorem holds. Thus it appears that the doubts regarding existence and uniqueness of solution of the Maxwell-Boltzmann equation may soon be allayed.) References (Truesdell)
Gilbarg, D. & Paolucci, D. I953 J. Rat. Mech. Anal. 2, 617. Greenspan, M. I949 Phys. Rev. (2), 72, 197. Greenspan, M. I950 J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 22, 568. Greenspan, M. I954 J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 26, 70. Jeffreys, H. I937 Proc. Roy. Soc. A, 160, 325. Karim, S. M. & Rosenhead, L. I952 Rev. Mod. Phys. 24, 108. Markham, J. J. I952 Phys. Rev. (2), 86, 497. Meixner, J. I9g2a Z. Phys. 131, 456. Meixner, J. I952b Acustica, 2, 101. Nyborg, W. L. I953 a J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 25, 68. Nyborg, W. L. I953b J. Acoust. Soc. Amer. 25, 938. Sakadi, Z. I94I Proc. Phys.-Math. Soc. Japan (3), 23, 208. Truesdell, C. I950 J. Math. Pur. Appl. (9) 29, 215. Truesdell, C. I952a J. Rat. Mech. Anal. 1, 125; corrections and additions, 2, 593 (1953). Truesdell, C. I9g2b Z. Phys. 131, 273. Truesdell, C. I952C C.R. Acad. Sci., Paris, 235, 702. Truesdell, C. I953 J. Rat. Mech. Anal. 2, 642. Zoller, K. I95I Z. Phys. 130, 1.

REVIEW OF DISCUSSION

BY E. N.

DA

C. ANDRADE, F.R.S.

The objects of the organizers of this discussion can perhaps be summarized as: (1) to bring the problems presented by the second coefficient of viscosity to the notice of applied mathematicians and physicists; (2) to clarify the problems; (3) to assess critically what has been already done; and (4) to learn from those active in the subject what is being done at the present time. The first object has clearly been successfully achieved. The discussion has attracted men of science from many countries-the United States, France, India and Italy-and from many of the universities and great industrial Germany, concerns of Britain. The number of contributions, all of high quality, attests the interest aroused. Some of those present may have come to learn what the second coefficient of viscosity might be, for many questions on the subject have been directed to me by eminent physicists in the past few weeks. I last heard the subject seriously discussed a number of years ago, when I was a young student under Professor Karl Pearson, whose eminence as an applied mathematician in fields other than those of statistics is sometimes forgotten in
5 Vol.
226.

A.