# Euler equation of fluid dynamics

I'm trying to obtain Euler equation for a perfect fluid in laminar or stationary flow. A particle fluid is submitted at volume forces and surface force. The fist, in my case, is giving only by gravity and the second by pressure. By Newton's second law I obtain:

$$\vec{F}_V + \vec{F}_s = m\frac{d\vec{v}}{dt}.$$

An element of volume force is given by $$d\vec{F}_V = dm\vec{g}=\rho d\omega\vec{g}$$ and an element of surface force is given by $$d\vec{F}_S = -pd\vec{S}.$$

Integrating I obtain

$$\int_V \rho \,d\omega\vec{g} - \int_S p\,d\vec{S} = \frac{d\vec{v}}{dt}\int_V \rho\, d\omega$$.

Now Euler equation is written in local form as $$\rho\vec{g} - \nabla p = \rho \frac{d\vec{v}}{dt}.$$

My question is this: where the gradient of $p$ comes from? I must have the following identity $$-\int_S pd\vec{S} = -\int_V \nabla p\,d\omega.$$

Why the transformation from a surface integral to a volume integral is given by the gradient and not by the divergence? I'm doing something wrong in the previous calculations?

-

## 2 Answers

This confusion is caused by vector calculus. You should treat each component separately, and then it is obvious. For example, for the x component:

$$\int_V \partial_x p dx dy dz = \int_{\partial V} p(x) dy dz = \int_{\partial V} p dS_x$$

by the fundamental theorem of calculus (do the x integral first). Likewise for the other components. You can make up a proof for this from the divergence theorem by introducing the fictitious vector field

$$Q = (p,0,0)$$

And then the divergence of Q is the left hand side, while the right hand side is $Q\cdot dS$. But it's really just the fundamental theorem of calculus.

-

It is simpler and more general considering it as a special case of the Gauss-Ostrogradsky theorem. – Anuar Dec 2 '12 at 5:58
@Anuar: Except it's so simple I don't think it needs Gauss or Ostrogradsky's names attached to it. – Ron Maimon Dec 2 '12 at 6:04
Well, it's just matter of likes. – Anuar Dec 2 '12 at 6:09

Because the Gauss-Ostrogradski theorem says that $$\iiint_{V}\nabla\cdot\mathbf{C}dv=\iint_{\partial V}\mathbf{C}\cdot\mathbf{n}da$$ Where $\mathbf{C}$ is a vector field. Here you don't have a vector field inside the integral. So, why do you expect that the G-O theorem is applied in this case?? By the way, the last equality that you wrote is correct. I don't know how to prove it, but I'm pretty sure that I saw that kind of theorem in Jackson's book of Electrodynamics.

-

Right. p is not a vector field... By the way I still don't understand the last equality... – R. M. Dec 1 '12 at 23:27
– Anuar Dec 1 '12 at 23:30
{"extraction_info": {"found_math": true, "script_math_tex": 0, "script_math_asciimath": 0, "math_annotations": 0, "math_alttext": 0, "mathml": 0, "mathjax_tag": 0, "mathjax_inline_tex": 3, "mathjax_display_tex": 9, "mathjax_asciimath": 0, "img_math": 0, "codecogs_latex": 0, "wp_latex": 0, "mimetex.cgi": 0, "/images/math/codecogs": 0, "mathtex.cgi": 0}, "config": {"markdown_headings": true, "markdown_code": true, "boilerplate_config": {"ratio_threshold": 0.3, "absolute_threshold": 10, "end_threshold": 15, "enable": true}, "remove_buttons": true, "remove_image_figures": true, "remove_link_clusters": true, "table_config": {"min_rows": 2, "min_cols": 3, "format": "plain"}, "remove_chinese": true, "remove_edit_buttons": true, "extract_latex": true}, "english_confidence": 0.9484889507293701, "perplexity_flag": "head"}