Computational

Computational Mechanics (1986) 1, 65-90 Mechanics

© Springer-Verlag 1986

Helmholtz decomposition revisited:

Vorticity generation and trailing edge condition
Part I: Incompressible flows

L. Morino
Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engineering, Boston University, Boston, Mass. 02215, USA

Abstract.The use of the Helmholtzdecompositionfor exteriorincompressibleviscousflowsis examined,withspecialemphasis

on the issueof the boundaryconditionsfor the vorticity.The problemis addressedby usingthe decompositionfor the infinite-
space; that is, by usinga representationfor the velocitythat is validfor both the fluidregionand the regioninsidethe boundary
surface. The motionof the boundaryis describedas the limitingcaseof a sequenceof impulsiveaccelerations.It is shownthat at
each instant of velocitydiscontinuity,vorticityis generated by the boundary condition on the normal component of the
velocity,for both inviscidand viscous flows. In viscousflows,the vorticityis then diffusedinto the surroundings: this yields
that the no-slip conditionsare thus automaticallysatisfied(since the presence of a vortex layer on the surfaceis required to
obtain a velocityslip at the boundary).Thisresultis then usedto showthat in order for the solutionto the Eulerequationsto be
the limitof the solutionto the Navier-Stokesequations, a trailing-edgecondition(that the vorticesbe shedas soon as they are
formed)must be satisfied.The use of the resultsfor a computationalschemeis also discussed.Finally,Lighthill'stranspiration
velocity is interpreted in terms of Helmholtzdecomposition,and extended to unsteady compressible flows.

I Introduction

This paper deals with the use of the Helmholtz decomposition theorem in fluid dynamics, with special
emphasis on the boundary conditions. The motivation for the work is originally computational: the
issue of the boundary conditions must be addressed carefully before attempting a numerical solution
of the problem. However, in the process of analyzing the boundary conditions, several issues, which
are of more general interest than the computational solution of the problem, were uncovered and
clarified. The objective of this paper is to present these conceptual results, both because of the general
theoretical interest, and because of their implications in developing computational schemes. In
particular, issues that are clarified include that of generation of vorticity. Also, much attention is
given to the limiting process of how the solution of the Euler equations may be obtained as the limit of
the solution of the Navier Stokes equations; this reveals the need for a trailing-edge condition for
inviscid flows that is physically equivalent to, but conceptually different from, the classical Kutta-
Joukowski condition. The concept of transpiration velocity is also addressed.
The problem considered in this paper is that of a body which moves in a fluid. The analysis is
limited to incompressible flows (compressible flows are considered in Part II of this work, currently in
preparation; compressibility is included here only in Appendix C, in the discussion of transpiration
velocity). At time t < 0, both body and fluid are assumed to be at rest unless otherwise stated. The
frame of reference will always be connected with the undisturbed flow. The surface of the body is
assumed to be impermeable (although prescribed flow-through may be easily incorporated in the
formulation). The fluid region is assumed to be simply-connected, unless otherwise stated.
The problem is addressed by using the Helmholtz decomposition theorem, which states that,
under suitable asymptotic behavior at infinity, any vector field v(x) may be decomposed into two
parts. The first one is irrotational (but, in general, not solenoidal) and may be expressed as the
gradient of a scalar function (called scalar potential). The second one is solenoidal (but, in general,
rotational) and may be expressed as the curl of a vector function (called vector potential). As shown
66 ComputationalMechanics 1 (1986)

later, this decomposition is unique only for the infinite space (i. e., the whole space, R 3, without any
boundary). If the vector field is defined in a region different from the infinite space, then the
decomposition is not unique: an irrotational solenoidal field (which is identically equal to zero in the
infinite space, if v = 0 at infinity) may be expressed either as the gradient of a scalar potential or as the
curl of a vector potential. Hence boundary conditions on the potentials are needed in order to obtain a
unique decomposition.
A very thorough analysis of the specific issue of the boundary conditions for the scalar/vector
potential decomposition of a general vector field was given by Weyl (1940), and Bykhovskiy and
Smirnov (1960) who show how, under suitable boundary conditions, a vector field may be uniquely
decomposed into several orthogonal vector spaces (see Appendix A). Related approaches are used, in
the field of computational fluid dynamics, by several authors, notably Hirasaki and Hellum (1968,
1970), Wu (e. g., 1976, 1982, 1984), Richardson and Cornish (1977), and Quartapelle and Valz-Gris
(1981). Their methods (known as potential-vorticity method or scalar/vector-potential method) differ
mainly because of boundary conditions (Appendix B).
A different approach is used in this paper. The issue of the boundary conditions on the potentials
is addressed by studying the velocity field in the infinite space, including the region inside the flow
boundary, where the velocity is assumed to be prescribed (for simplicity this region will be referred to
as the solid region). In other words, the system under consideration is thought of as a continuum
which occupies the infinite space and is part fluid and part solid. Having transformed the fluid
problem into an infinite-space continuum problem, the Helmholtz decomposition is unique and the
analysis simplifies considerably. It will be shown that for both viscous and inviscid flows, using this
representation for the solution, the only boundary conditions required on the body are those on the
normal component of velocity (for the sake of conciseness, this condition will be referred to as the
normal boundary condition). It will also be shown that, under special circumstances (e. g., sudden
changes in velocity of the boundary), the no-slip conditions (on the tangential components of the
velocity) cannot be satisfied, whereas under ordinary circumstances, they are automatically satisfied
by the representation used.
More specifically, one obtains that for a given vorticity distribution at time t = ti, an impulsive
change in the boundary conditions at t = ti yields a Zero-thickness vortex-layer on the surface of the
body. This vortex-layer is the same for both inviscid and viscous flows: it will be shown that this is the
essence of the mechanism of vorticity generation which is therefore independent of the presence of
viscosity. The difference between viscous and inviscid flows is due to the fact that in viscous flows, the
vortex layer is immediately diffused, so that, at time t = t + , the no-slip condition is obtained. For
inviscid flows, on the other hand, the vortex layer remains on the surface. This argument is then
extended to the case of a continuous motion, by describing such motion as the limit of a piece-wise
continuous one.
It is apparent that this approach is particularly suited for a computational scheme: this aspect of
the work is addressed by Del Marco (1986). This paper is limited to the mathematical foundation and
the physical interpretation of the approach, with particular emphasis on vorticity generation and on
the conditions under which the solution of the Euler equations is the limit of the solution of the
Navier-Stokes equations. (The computational scheme is actually closely related to that of Wu (e. g.,
1976, 1982, 1984); the relationship of the proposed approach to that of Wu is examined in detail in
Appendix B.)
The mechanism of vorticity generation for a body under impulsive start has been addressed by
Lighthill (1963) and Batchelor (1967). Their formulation (based on physical rather than mathematical
considerations) clearly describes the phenomenon as diffusion of the zero-thickness vortex layer due
to the slip at the boundary. The generation of vorticity for the steady-state case is dealt with by
Lighthill (1963, p. 84), who shows that "cross-stream vorticity is created at the rate UU', and the
streamwise vorticity at the rate uZ~s'', where U is the magnitude of the external velocity, the prime
indicates directional derivative along the streamlines, and t¢s is the curvature of those streamlines in a
plane tangential to the surface. The issue of generation of vorticity is also addressed by Morton
(1984), who tries to reconcile the two mechanisms described by Lighthill (1963) and Batchelor (1967)
by examining specific cases and dividing them into two groups: fast motion (with instantaneous
generation of vorticity) and slow motion (with continuous generation of vorticity). The results
L. Morino: Helmholtzdecompositionrevisited: Vorticitygenerationand trailing edge condition.Part 1 67

obtained here tend to indicate that the mechanism of vorticity generation can always be explained
(even for the case of uniform motion) in terms of a phenomenon similar to that described by Lighthill
(1963) and Batchelor (1967) for the limited case of impulsive start.
The results outlined above are valid for an arbitrary shape. However, special emphasis will be
given here, especially in Sect. 3 and 6, to the limiting case of inviscid flow around a body with a sharp
trailing edge: for simplicity, this case will be referred to as the 'wing problem', even though it actually
occurs on a broader class of problems (such as windmills, propellers, and helicopter rotors). In this
case, an additional issue arises because, it will be shown, for zero viscosity vorticity is actually shed at
the trailing edge and goes into the fluid field: a mechanism for the formation of vorticity in the fluid
region for inviscid flows. The conditions under which the solution to the Euler equations is the limit of
that to the Navier-Stokes equations (and in particular the trailing-edge condition for the wing
problem) are included in the discussion.
Since the solution for the fluid region is imbedded into an infinite-space solution, this approach
will be referred to as the infinite-space approach. This paper is divided into seven sections.
Preliminary considerations on Helmholtz decomposition, fundamental to this paper, are reviewed in
Sect. 2. In Sect. 3, the problem of a wing in potential flow, essential for the understanding of the
paper, is reviewed: it will be shown how vorticity is indeed generated on the surface of the wing and
shed into the flow field at the trailing edge, even within the framework of potential flow theory.
Sections 4 and 5 deal with rotational flows (for inviscid and viscous fluids, respectively) around
general bodies. The emphasis is again on the wing problem in Sect. 6, where it is shown that at least for
attached flows, the solution to the Euler equations is the limit of the solution of the Navier-Stokes
equations, provided that a condition on vortex shedding of the trailing edge is satisfied. Comments
and recommendations for future work are given in Sect. 7. Three Appendices are also included.
Appendix A deals with the relationship of the current work to the classical decomposition of Weyl
(1940) and Bykhovskiy and Smirnov (1960). In Appendix B, a comparison with other works in fluid
dynamics such as Quartapelle and Valz-Griz (1981) and Wu (e. g., 1976, 1982, and 1984) is provided.
Finally, the Helmholtz decomposition is used to provide a theoretical basis for a new formulation for
the transpiration velocity (introduced by Lighthill, 1958): the advantage of the new formulation is
that it shows that the expression for the transpiration velocity, introduced by Lighthill for
incompressible flows, is indeed valid for unsteady compressible flows as well (in contrast to the
common expression used for steady compressible flows; see, e.g., Lemmerman and Sonnad (I 979)).
It should be emphasized that at some stages in this paper, intuitive physical reasoning is used at the
expense of mathematical rigor. At times this is done for the sake of clarity (in particular, the use of
functional analysis is avoided, as much as possible, because the mathematical complexity may
obscure the physical significance of the results; the more mathematically complex issues, encountered
for instance, in the comparison with related formulations, have been included in Appendices A and B).
At other times, this author was not able to obtain a rigorous formulation and the results are shown to
be valid under certain simplifying conditions or using physical reasoning. In either case, a plausible
approach to be used to obtain a rigorous proof of the results and/or the need for additional analysis
are indicated. A rigorous approach to some of the issues discussed here is presented by Del Marco
(1986).

2 Helmholtz decomposition

For the sake of clarity the essential elements of the Helmholtz scalar/vector potential decomposition
are briefly presented here. Given an arbitrary vector field (which is here assumed to be differentiable)
it is possible to decompose the vector field as

v=V~b+VxA (2.1)
where 4) is called scalar potential whereas A is called vector potential, and is such that

V.A=0 (2.2)
68 Computational Mechanics 1 (1986)

According to Lamb (1932), this result is to be attributed to Helmholtz and is usually referred to in the
literature as the Helmholtz decomposition theorem. It is apparent that V~b is irrotational, whereas
V x A is solenoidal. In addition, taking the divergence of Eq. (2.1) one obtains that, necessarily,
V2~ = 0 (2.3)
where
0 = V. v (2.4)
is the expansion of the velocity field. Also taking the curl of Eq. (2.1), noting that, for any vector a,
v x (v x a)= V(V. a)-V2a (2.5)
and using Eq. (2.2), one obtains that, necessarily
V2A = -co (2.6)
where co is the vorticity
~=VXV (2.7)
The proof of the Helmholtz decomposition theorem is easily established as follows. Find a particular
solution Ao to V × (V × A) = 0. IfV. A0 4=0, consider A - A0 + V~/with ~/such that V2~/= - V . A0 (note
that V × V~/~0, therefore the value ofq does not affect the value of v). Thus A satisfies Eqs. (2.2) and
(2.6). Next note that using Eqs. (2.2, 2.5, 2.6) and (2.7),
V x (v - V x A)=oJ - o ) = 0 (2.8)
that is, v - V x A is irrotational and therefore there exists a potential 4) such that
v - V x A =V4) (2.9)
(where 4) satisfies Eq. 2.3). Equation 2.9 is equivalent to the desired Eq. (2.1) and therefore the proof
of the theorem is complete. The only condition used is that v is differentiable. Note that the
decomposition is not unique since the solution of Eq. (2.6) is not unique without appropriate
boundary conditions. In particular, any irrotational solenoidal field may be represented either as V4)
or as V × A. However the decomposition may be made unique by the addition of suitable boundary
conditions, as shown in Appendix A.
On the other hand, the decomposition is actually unique for the infinite-space case. More
precisely, assume that the vector field is defined in the whole three-dimensional space, and is
differentiable and that 0 and co vanish at infinity of order r -3. In this case, adding the inessential
conditions that 4) and A go to zero at infinity, the solutions to Eqs. (2.3) and (2.6) are actually unique
and given by:

4)(x)--I I! 4 0(y)
lx_y I dV(y) (2.10)

and
o(y)
A(x)=j'~.. 4rc[x--~ dV(y) (2.1')

Combining Eqs. (2.J, 2.3, 2.5, 2.10) and (2.11) one obtains the elegant expression
Vy x v(y)
v(x)=-v, aV~.lx-yl
v(y) dV(y)+Vx x 555 4 r c l ~ y T dV(y) (2.12)

Note that the only assumptions used are that v is differentiable and 0 and o) vanish at infinity of
order r- 3.
It may be worth noting that the second integral in Eq. (2.12) yields, in the limit, the well known law
of Blot and Savart, for the velocity "induced" by a vortex filament. Therefore this integral may be
thought of as a Biot and Savart law for distributed vorticity. It is understood that (in contrast to
L. Morino: Helmholtz decomposition revisited: Vorticity generation and trailing edge condition. Part I 69

classical electromagnetism) "induced" is meant here more as a mathematical term than as a physi-
cal one.
Only the case of an incompressible fluid (i. e., 0 = 0) is considered here; the compressible flow
problem is addressed in Part 2 of this work. Particularly important is the case in which the vorticity is
concentrated into an infinitesimally thin layer (on a surface o-),possibly bound by a vortex filament. In
this case Eq. (2.12) yields, in the limit,

v(x)=VxX~ 4 T lx-y[
( Y ) da(y)+VxX~ F(y)
c 4 lx-yl dy (2.13)
o

where Cis the boundary of a: F is not necessarily constant, but the combined system ofvorticity (on a
and C) is solenoidal. It should be noted that in this case, v may also be expressed in terms of a scalar
potential, because of the well known equivalence between doublet layers and vortex layers (Batchelor
1967, Campbell 1973, Soohoo et al. 1978)
1 1 )
3#oD(y)N 4 lx-yl 4~[x-y[ d~(y)+~c D(y) 4 ~ l x _ y [ dy (2.14)
with
~ = n xV~D (2.15)
where V~ is the surface gradient.
Equation (2.15) seems to contradict the uniqueness of the decomposition for the infinite-space
case. The apparent contradiction is due to the fact that Eq. (2.10) gives a solution of Eq. (2.3) which is
unique under the implicit assumption that q~ is continuous (and twice differentiable) in the infinite
space: on the other hand the potential representation used in Eq. (2.15) yields a potential function
which is discontinuous on a. The discussion may be carried further by noting that Eq. (2.12) is actually
valid, in the limit, under the much less restrictive assumption that v belongs to the L2 space (i. e., that v
is square-summable in Lebesgue sense, Bykhovskiy and Smirnov, 1960). In this case, Eq. (2.13) is
obtained as the limit of Eq. (2.12). The doublet representation, on the other hand, is not obtained as a
limit of Eq. (2.12).
Finally it should be emphasized that, even though the decomposition is not unique, the velocity in
a volume Vis uniquely determined by the vorticity to in V, the expansion 0 in V, and the condition on
the normal velocity on the boundary of V (Lamb, 1932, § 147). For, given a particular solution of Eq.
(2.6), the difference (Eq. 2.9) is irrotational and therefore it may be expressed as V~, with q~satisfying
the Neumann exterior problem for the Poisson equation, Eq. (2.3), which has a unique solution.

3 Potential flows

The formulation presented in this paper was obtained by this author in the process of trying to
understand how his work on potential flows could be extended to viscous flows. For the sake of
clarity, the formulation is presented by following the same logical process, starting from the potential-
flow formulation and building it up to viscous flows (this approach is particularly useful in discussing
the relationship between the Navier-Stokes and the Euler equations). Therefore, the potential-flow
formulation introduced by this author is reviewed in this section, and reinterpreted in terms of
Helmholtz decomposition. In this section, emphasis is given to the problem of a wing with a sharp
trailing edge.
The problem of inviscid incompressible flows around a solid region (bounded by a surface o-) is
governed by the continuity equation
V.v=0 (3.1)
and the Euler equations
Dv 1
D~-- QVp (3.2)
where D/Dt is the substantial or material derivative 8/St+ v. V. The surface a is assumed to be
impermeable; this implies that
70 Computational Mechanics 1 (1986)

v.n=vb.n on crb (3.3)

(where Vbis the velocity of the point x of the boundary surface ab). The boundary conditions at infinity
are v = 0 and p = p ~ . The initial conditions are
v (x, 0) = Vo(X) (3.4)
In this section, it is assumed that Vo(X)=0. This implies that the flow is initially irrotational.
Taking the curl of Eq. (3.2), with Q constant, one obtains the vorticity transport equation
Do9
Dt o9 Vv (3.5)

This implies that the flow, which has been assumed to be initially irrotational, remains irrotational at
all times, with the possible exception of those points that come in contact with the surface of the body.
More specifically, consider the case of a wing with a sharp trailing edge. In this case the flow is
irrotational at all points except for those emanating from the points of the trailing edge (Morino et al.
1985). These points form a streak surface that is called wake.
If the flow is irrotational, then
v=V¢ (3.6)
(if, as assumed, the flow region is simply connected then q5 is single valued). Using Eq. (3.6), the
continuity equation reduces to
V2¢=0 (3.7)
with the boundary conditions (Eq. 3.3)

~n=Vb.n on ob (3.8)

and q~=0 at infinity. The Euler equations may be integrated to yield Bernoulli's theorem
8¢
+.1 Ir12q p _ p ~ (3.9)
~t Q 0
Finally, on the wake, using the conservation of mass and m o m e n t u m across a surface of discontinuity,
i.e., the conditions Ap = 0 and A (v. n) = 0, one obtains Morino et al. 1985, or Morino and Bharadvaj
1985 where a more detailed and more rigorous derivation is presented)
DV¢
Dt (A4~) = 0 (3.10)

where Dw/Dt indicates the substantial derivative following a wake point having velocity
v w = (V 1 -1-V2)/2 (where 1 and 2 indicate the two sides of the wake). The initial condition for .this
equation is A¢ = 0 at t = 0 (no other initial conditions are required for the potential formulation).
Equation (3.10) may be integrated to yield
Aq~= constant (3.11)
following a wake point. The constant is equal to the value of Aq~te at the time when the wake point left
the trailing edge (or the value that Aq~had at time t = 0, i.e., A~b= 0 in our case). In addition one needs a
trailing edge condition: this condition is discussed later in this section after introducing an integral
formulation for the problem (the generalization of this condition to rotational inviscid flows is one of
the main objectives of this paper).
The above problem may be addressed by using an integral equation introduced by Morino (1973,
1974) for unsteady compressible potential flows. Given its bearing on this work, the integral equation
is briefly reviewed here for the case of incompressible flows and then reformulated in terms of vector
potential.
Using Green's function method, with a surface surrounding both body and wake, letting the
closed surface around a wake collapse into two infinitesimally close surfaces and using the condition
L. Morino: Helmholtz decomposition revisited: Vorticity generation and trailing edge condition. Part I 71

A (v. n)= 0 on the wake, one obtains

~b 1 da(y)+ 8( 1 ) da(y)

+If A4) N d<y) (3.12)

~w

where eb is the closed surface of the body (e.g., a wing), aw is the open surface of the wake,
A4) = 4)1 - 4)2 is the discontinuity of the potential across this surface and ~/~n = n (y). Vr. Note that the
unit normal n on a is pointed outward, whereas that on o-w it points from side 2 to side 1. Also,

E(x)= 1 4n (3.13)

where f2 is the solid angle described by the surface of the body as seen by an observer in x. In
particular, E = 1 outside o-b,E = 0 inside o'b, and E = 1/2 on a smooth point of the surface of the body
(i.e., a point where the normal is continuous).
If x is on the surface of the body, Eq. (3.12) is an integral equation relating the potential 4) on ab to
the normal derivative (which is known from the boundary condition, Eq. 3.8) and to the potential
discontinuity across the wake (which is known from the preceding time history, see Eq. 3.11). The
integral equation may be used to evaluate 4) on the body. Then Eq. (3.12) may be used to evaluate 4)
and hence the velocity anywhere in the field, in particular for the points of the wake. From this, the
position of the wake at time t + dt may be calculated and the process may be repeated. (This
formulation was actually implemented by Morino and Kuo (1974) for the prescribed-wake analysis of
unsteady compressible flows around wings and by Morino et al. (1985) for the free-wake analysis of
unsteady incompressible flows around helicopter rotors.)
An important consideration should be made at this point: an additional condition is required at
the trailing edge. Because of the equivalence between doublet layers and vortex layers introduced in
Sect. 2 (Eq. 2.14), the representation given by Eq. (3.12) indicates the presence of two line-vortices at
the trailing edge: the first is generated by the doublet distribution over the wing and has intensity
equal to (4), - 4)~)at the trailing edge (with u and l indicating the upper and lower surfaces of the wing,
which are continued into sides 1 and 2 of the wake), whereas the second is generated by the doublet
distribution over the wake and has intensity A4)te. Assuming that the flow is smooth at the trailing
edge, the two line-vortices must cancel each other out, which implies that at a point xt, of the trailing
edge

A4) (Xte) = 4)u (Xte) -- 4)l(Xte) (3.14)

This condition is one of the key issues addressed here and is generalized to rotational inviscid flows
later in this paper. In order to avoid confusion with the conditions of Kutta (1902) and Joukowski
(1907) (who introduced a physically equivalent condition with a different mathematical objective:
eliminating the nonuniqueness of two-dimensional steady incompressible potential flows), the
assumption that no vortices exist at the trailing edge will be referred to as the 'trailing-edge condition
for the Euler equations'.
In order to appreciate the importance of the trailing-edge condition, it is interesting to discuss
what happens at time t = 0 +. As mentioned above, both the fluid and the solid regions are assumed to
be at rest for t < 0, hence, at time t = 0 +, the wake has not had time to form, and therefore at time
t = 0 +, the potential is continuous and satisfies the exterior Neumann problem for the Laplace
equation. Since the fluid region is assumed to be simply connected, the solution exists and is unique
(Batchelor, 1967), and is obtained by solving Eq. (3.12) (with O4)/~ngiven by Eq. (3.8) and with the last
integral identically equal to zero). Such a solution, for the case of a wing with a sharp trailing edge,
typically exhibits the presence of a line-vortex at the trailing edge (a rigorous proof appears desirable
here). The solution thereafter depends upon the condition that one imposes at the trailing edge. If we
impose that the vortex remains at the trailing edge, we obtain one solution; if we assume that the
vortex leaves the trailing edge, we obtain a different one. The trailing-edge condition used in this paper
is that the vortex is shed immediately after it is formed. One of the objectives of this paper is to show
72 Computational Mechanics 1 (1986)

that this is the correct trailing-edge condition to impose if we want our solution to be the limiting case
of the solution of the Navier-Stokes equations (Sect. 6).
It should be pointed out that from the mathematical point of view, the integral Eq. (3.12) may be
thought of as a compatibility condition between ¢ and ~a/an for a given A~p distribution. The main
objective of this paper is to show that this integral equation (or equivalent ones) is the key to the
generation of vorticity, not only for potential flows but for viscous flows as well.
In order to show this for the simple case of potential flow, it is convenient, following Lamb (1932),
to introduce a fictitious internal flow, vt(x) = Vxcp~(x). This is obtained by writing an equation similar
to Eq. (3.12) for the volume inside a. Adding the two expressions one obtains (Lamb 1932)

,b an / 4n[x-yl - ( ¢ - ¢ ' ) ~ 4~lx-y [ da(y)

+ ~wflA¢ ~nn -Yl da(y) (3.15)

where (Eq. 3.13)

~0(x) = E(x) ¢ (x) + (1 - e(x)) ~,(x)
= qS(x) outside ab
= ~b~(X) inside ab
=½ (~b(x) + ~bi(x)) on smooth point of ob (3.16)
Consider for simplicity the case in which the solid region moves in arbitrary rigid-body transla-
tion (the more general case is considered in Sect. 4, see Eq. 4.8). Hence, vb(x, t)= vs(t)=VCs, where
qSs= vs" x. Setting
¢,=¢~ (3.17)
Eq. (3.8) yields

an an (3.18)

and Eq. (3.15) reduces to

~0(x)=~b(¢-¢~)~ rclx_y I &r(y)+ A~b~ rclx_y I dtr(y) (3.19)

If x is on trb Eq. (3.19) is an integral equation (equivalent to Eq. 3.12) which may also be used to
evaluate ¢ on O-b.(This equation was actually used by Maskew (1982) as a basis for a computational
scheme.) The advantage of Eq. (3.19) over Eq. (3.t2) in the present context is that it gives a
representation of the velocity field which is valid for both the fluid and the solid region.
More importantly, using the equivalence between doublet layer and vortex layer, Eq. (2.14), and
using Eq. (3.14), one can see that the velocity field may be expressed as

r(y) d~(y)+vx × ~,~

SI 4~lx-rl
r(y) da(y) (3.20)
v(x)=V~x ~ 4rtlx_y [
where, according to Eq. (2.15),
~,(y)=nxV,(qS-~b~) on o-b (3.21)
~,(y)=nxV,(A¢) on ~
It may be noted that Eq. (3.20) yields, on the surface of the body

vb(x).n(x)=n(x). V~x ~ 47tgl!Y)l"Y[ da(y)+n(x). V~x j'~ 4n~!Y)l--Y[ da(y) (3.22)

L. Morino: Helmholtzdecompositionrevisited: Vorticitygenerationand trailing edgecondition.Part I 73

which is a third integral equation (equivalent to Eqs. 3.13 and 3.19) that may be used to evaluate 7 on
%, given the velocity of the body and the vorticity distribution on the wake. (This equation is actually
the basis for the well known vortex-lattice method.)
Note that the velocity given by Eq. (3.19) and hence by Eq. (3.20) is correct for both the fluid and
the solid region. Therefore Eq. (3.22) yields the correct velocity discontinuity between the fluid and
the solid.
An alternate way to interpret 7 on ab (in Eqs. 3.20 and 3.22) is as a zero-thickness layer of
vorticity that resides completely within the fluid region (and not between the fluid and the solid) : a
zero-thickness boundary layer, so to speak. This point of view will facilitate considerably the physical
interpretation of the comparison between the solutions to the Euler equations and the Navier-Stokes
equations and will be used throughout this paper. The boundary between the fluid and the solid
regions is then interpreted to be immediately inside the vortex layer. Accordingly, the velocity of the
fluid on ab is equal to that of the body: the no-slip conditions are thus automatically satisfied. The
velocity jump occurs within the fluid region and is caused by the zero-thickness layer of vorticity.
With the above interpretation, Eq. (3.20) predicts the correct distribution of the vorticity, for inviscid
flows, not only on the wake but also on the surface of the body. (It may be worth noting that if
Eq. (3.14) was not satisfied, then, according to Eq. (2.14), Eq. (3.19) would be equivalent to Eq. (3.20)
plus an additional trailing-edge vortex filament of intensity qS,-qS~-A~b.)
It is interesting to interpret Eqs. (3.19) and (3.20) in terms of the Helmholtz decomposition. In
Eq. (3.19) the velocity is expressed exclusively in terms of the scalar potential; the vorticity in the wake
is expressed as a doublet layer. On the other hand, in Eq. (3.20) the velocity is expressed exclusively in
terms of the vector potential. This second approach is a particular case of the infinite-space approach
(outlined in Sect. 1) : Eq. (3.20) gives the correct representation for the velocity field not only in the
fluid region but in the solid one as well. Having embedded the solution in the infinite space, the
decomposition is now unique (Sect. 2).
Note that there seems to be a contradiction between the fact that the decomposition for the infinite
space is unique (Sect. 2) and the fact that v may be represented (in the infinite space) in terms of either
scalar potential (Eq. 3.19) or a vector potential (Eq. 3.20) : this is due to the fact that in proving the
uniqueness, we assumed ~bto be continuous in the infinite space, a condition violated by Eq. (3.19) (see
the paragraph following Eq. 2.15 for a more detailed discussion).
In summary, it appears that the potential-flow formulation is capable of "generating vorticity."
The real question is "how good is this generation"; in other words, how close is the vorticity
distribution obtained from a potential flow analysis to the one obtained from a viscous flow analysis ?
In order to address this issue, the potential-flow formulation will be extended to rotational flows. It is
apparent that this extension can be more easily obtained starting from Eq. (3.20) rather than
Eq. (3.19), since in the former, the representation is already given in terms of the vorticity. This
extension is accomplished first for rotational inviscid flows (Sect. 4) and then for viscous flows
(Sect. 5). The comparison between the solutions (and vorticity generation) for inviscid and viscous
flows is addressed in Sect. 6.

4 Rotational inviscid flows

In this section it will not be assumed, in general, that the flow is initially irrotational (in particular, that
the fluid is at rest at time t < 0). If the vorticity is not equal to zero at time t -- 0, the flow field, though
inviscid, is not potential. Extending the infinite-space approach introduced for potential flows, an
expression is sought for the velocity which is valid in the infinite space, i. e., both fluid and solid region.
The velocity field in the solid region is assumed to be known (it may be worth noting that any velocity
field in the solid region that assumes a prescribed value on the boundary surface is equivalent for the
analysis presented in this paper). For the sake of simplicity, initially the velocity field in the solid
region is assumed to be solenoidal
V.v~=O (4.1)
(the general case is examined later in this section, see Eq. 4.7).
74 Computational Mechanics 1 (1986)
According to the results of Section 2, the velocity is simply given by

It is understood that in Eq. (4.2) the vorticity is distributed in the solid region, in the fluid region, as
well as on the surface of the body (as a zero-thickness vortex layer responsible for the slip). At any
instant, the vorticity distribution in the solid region and that in the fluid region are known, either from
V x v~ (with v~ assumed to be prescribed) or from the integration of the vorticity transport equation,
Eq. (3.5) (note that in general, akin to potential flows, the vorticity in an inviscid flow field may
include a vortex layer on the wake, where a tangential discontinuity in the velocity exists). The
vorticity distribution on the surface of the boundary, however, is not known, and, as shown below
(Eq. 4.6), is determined by the normal boundary conditions. In order to proceed, it is convenient to
separate the three vorticity fields (in the fluid region, in the solid region, and on the boundary,
respectively).
However, if we do this, the three individual vorticity fields are not necessarily solenoidal in R 3 ; this
"induces" individual velocity fields that are not solenoidal : for instance, if ms" n # 0, the velocity
"induced" by the vorticity in the solid region is not solenoidal (Lamb 1932). In order to avoid dealing
with nonsolenoidal velocity fields, following Lamb, let us add an infinitesimally thin region, Ls, to the
solid region and let us "continue" the vorticity field into this region so that the vorticity itself is
solenoidal in V~+ L~. Similarly, the vorticity in V: may be made solenoidal by "continuing" it into the
thin region L: (this process may be made rigorous if performed in the limit sense, as discussed, for
instance, by Bykhovskiy and Smirnov 1960). This yields
v(x) = w:(x) + w~(x) + wb(x) (4.3)
where

w:(x)=Vx x ~ 4~rlc°~(Y2yldV(y) (4.4a)

Vf JrLf

w,(x)=Gx j'j'~ 4~l°(Y2yl..dV(y) (4.4b)

Vs + Ls
and

(4.4c)
o" b

Note that, because of the use made of the vorticity in the thin layers Ls and L:, the vorticity on the
boundary is also solenoidal, and therefore satisfies the equation
V~. ~ = 0 (4.5)
where V¢. is the surface divergence operator.
Taking the normal component of Eqs. (4.3) and using Eqs. (3.3) and (4.4c), one obtains

Vb'n=wf'n+Ws'n+n'Vxx~ 41r:(Y)y do-(y) (4.6,

O"b

which is an integral equation of the same nature as Eq. (3.22) for potential flows, and may be used to
obtain ~ on O'b.
If the solid region has 0 = V. vs # 0, one should simply add the contribution of the expansion of 0 to
Eq. 4.3 (Eqs. 2.1 and 2.10) to obtain

V(X)-~- W f (X)--[- Ws(X)--~- Wb (X)-~- V x ISI4°4Y)y

Vs
dV(y) (4.7)

Note that no source surface distribution should be included on the surface a: this would yield a
discontinuity of the normal component of the velocity, indicating penetration or separation.
L. Morino: Helmholtzdecompositionrevisited: Vorticitygenerationand trailing edgecondition.Part 1 75

[It is now easy to go back to the problem of Section 3 and present the formulation for potential
flows for a wing in arbitrary motion. Potential flows are obtained when o~= 0 for t < 0. This implies
o~= 0 at all times in the fluid region (except for the surface of the wake). Therefore, in this case, the
velocity is given by (taking the limit of Eq. (4.5a) as the vorticity in the wake tends to a. vortex layer)
~(Y) ~(Y)
v(x)=V~ x ~b 4rtlx--Yt da(y)+V~ x ~" 4 n t x _ y ] do'(y)
O"w

0()
+V~ IIf 4rcl,Y_~yl~,
Vs
dV(y)+Vxx IIf 4 ~ l x _ y [ dV(y)
V~ + Ls
(4.80

which is an obvious extension of Eq. (3.20). It is now apparent that even for rotational flows, if the
boundary surface has a sharp trailing edge, wy must include the contribution of a vortex sheet, which
is obtaine8 as the limit of a continuous distribution of vorticity (in other words, Eq. (4.4a) should be
interpreted in terms of the theory of generalized functions). This point is examined further in Sec-
tion 6, with emphasis on the trailing-edge condition.]
In summary, the conclusions are equivalent to those for potential flows. Equation (4.3) gives the
velocity field both in the solid region and in the fluid region. Therefore, the sum of the vorticity on
and those in Ly and L~ is responsible for the actual velocity discontinuity (as mentioned above, this
vortex layer is here interpreted as actual vorticity in the fluid region, i.e., a zero-thickness boundary
layer).
Finally, in.order to deepen our understanding of the representation given by Eq. (4.3) (and to
facilitate the comparison with the works of Weyl 1940 and Bykhovskiy and Smirnov 1960, see
Appendix A), in the remainder of this section, the analysis is carried a bit further. Because of the
linearity of the integral equation, Eq. (4.3) may be rewritten as
w = w} + w; + w/, (4.9)
where

wk(x) = wax) + vx x f5b 4 lx -Yl da(y) (4.10a)

w:(x) = w~(x)+ Vx × IJ'~b4 r t ~ ~ da(y) (4.lOb)

b(y)
(4.10.c)

with ~¢, ~ and ~b such that

w)-. n=O (4.11.a)
wg. n = O (4.11.b)
W; " n=v b • !I (4Al.c)
respectively. Comparing Eq. (4.6) to Eqs. (4.9-4.11.c) we see that
(4A2)
Note that (see Eq. 4.4.a and 4.10.a), w} is potential inside ab and satisfies Eq. 4.11.a on o-b, and
therefore
w) = 0 inside ab (4.13)
Note that a solenoidal velocity field in a volume Vis uniquely determined by the vorticity in Vand by
the normal boundary condition (see end of Section 2). Hence w; + w~,coincides with vs in Vs, because
they have the same vorticity in V~and the same normal component on O'b. Therefore, Eq. (4.9) gives
the correct representation for the velocity of the body, since w} = 0 inside ab (Eq. 4.13).
Uging a similar reasoning, one can see that
w~-O outside ab (4.14)
76 Computational Mechanics 1 (1986)

and that w) + w; coincides with vy in Vy, since they have the same vorticity in Vyand the same normal
component on ab. Hence, Eq. (4.9) gives the correct representation in the fluid region, since w; ~ 0
outside ab.
It may be worth noting that, according to Eq. (4.13), the contribution of w) is identically equal to
zero outside ab and therefore it could be eliminated completely from the formulation if our interests
were limited to solving the problem of the fluid flow around ab. However, the resulting vortex layer
would have no relationship with the physical vortex layer: therefore, if we are interested in the
vorticity generation (for instance, to compare the solutions of the Euler and the Navier-Stokes
equations, see Section 6), this term must be retained in the formulation. It may be worth noting that
this term is identically equal to zero for a body in translation (and, therefore, typically negligible in
aircraft aerodynamics). However, this term is essential to understand vorticity generation for rotating
bodies, such as helicopter rotors. This issue is addressed further in Appendix A, where the relationship
of the present formulation with the classical decomposition of Bykhovskiy and Smirnov (1960) is
also presented. It is apparent, that, in any event, Eqs. (4.10.a) and (4.14) may be used, from a
computational point of view, to substitute the evaluation of the volume integrals over the solid region,
with the evaluation of the equivalent surface integrals.

5 Viscous flows

The issue that arises next is whether the above analysis may be extended to viscous flows. In this case,
except for special cases discussed below, the tangential discontinuity is equal to zero (no-slip
condition) and the boundary condition (combining the normal and the tangential components) is
v=vb on a (5.1)
The no-slip condition implies that
~oy. n = a~s" n (5.2)
and hence the two vorticity fields in the two infinitesimal layers, Lf and Lb, may be chosen to be equal
and opposite. As a consequence one obtains that ~, must be identically equal to zero, otherwise a
tangential discontinuity occurs and the no-slip condition is violated. Therefore, we find ourselves in a
situation where we have more boundary conditions to satisfy than in the inviscid case (one on the
normal, as well as two on the tangential components of the velocity), but apparently less degrees of
freedom, since now ~ = 0. The only possible answer is that o~in the field adjusts itself to satisfy both the
normal and the tangential boundary conditions. The mechanism whereby this process occurs is not
immediately obvious and is clarified in this section: this is the key issue of this work.
Incompressible viscous flows are governed by the continuity equation, Eq. (3.1), and by the
Cauchy equations of motion
Dv
Q Dt = - V p + d i v V (5.3)

where V is the viscous stress tensor. In particular, if

V=2#D (5.4)
where D is the deformation tensor, one recovers the Navier-Stokes equations for incompressible
flows
Dv
Dt =-VP~-#V2v (5.5)
In order to derive the results presented here, it is not necessary to limit the formulation to the Navier-
Stokes equations. However, for the sake of clarity, this case is discussed first and then generalized to
general viscous flows. By taking the curl of Eq. (5.5), one obtains the vorticity evolution equation
L. Morino: Helmholtz decomposition revisited: Vorticity generation and trailing edge condition. Part i 77

O¢.o
- e~- Vv + vV2o) (5.6)
Dt
with v = #/~.
[It should be emphasized that the Navier-Stokes equations and hence Eq. (5.6) are valid whether
or not the flow is turbulent; therefore the analysis of this section is valid for turbulent flows as well, at
least from a theoretical point of view. Of course, considerable complications arise if one wants to use
the theoretical results to develop a computational scheme. This point is examined further in Section 7.
In addition, the issue of turbulence becomes important, even from a theoretical point of view, if one
wants to study the relationship between the solution to the Euler equations and the limit of the
solution to the Navier-Stokes equations, an issue examined in Section 6.]
In order to facilitate the description of the phenomenon, it is convenient to start from the
exception (rather than the rule) and examine an anomalous case in which the no-slip boundary
condition is violated even for viscous flows. Such a case arises any time the surface of the boundary is
subject to an abrupt change in velocity. This of course violates the laws of physics, because it implies
an infinite acceleration. Nonetheless, the study of this limiting case clarifies the essence of the
phenomenon of vorticity generation and is the core of the present work.
To simplify things even further, consider the problem of an impulsive start, studied by LighthilI
(1963) and Batchelor (1967). Assume that at time t < 0, both the fluid and the solid are at rest. At time
t = 0 +, let the solid be subject to a pure translation with finite velocity v0. The vorticity at time t -- 0 + is
zero in the solid region (subject to translation) as well as in the fluid region (initial conditions for the
differential equation of vorticity transport). This is true whether the fluid is viscous or inviscid.
Therefore the vorticity field is completely known except for a surface distribution ofvorticity (which is
solenoidal, and therefore may be expressed in terms of a single function, D, see Eq. 2.15). It is
apparent that the only u n k n o w n is the function D, and therefore only one scalar boundary condition
(not three, i.e., v = Vo) may be satisfied. Since the surface is impermeable, the condition on the normal
component of the velocity must be satisfied and hence no other conditions may be satisfied. This
implies that in general, for the case under consideration (sudden start from rest configurations), we
have to give up the no-slip condition, at least at time t = 0 +.
It is understood that for viscous flows the zero-thickness layer of vorticity is immediately diffused
into the surrounding (at time t = dt, the thickness of the vortex layer is ~/~dt, see Batchelor 1967). (As
pointed out by Batchelor 1967, this phenomenon is analogous to that encountered in heat conduction
when a body of constant temperature To is suddenly immersed in a fluid of temperature T1). This
implies that, immediately after t = 0 +, the boundary conditions on the tangential components of the
velocity are automatically satisfied: for, the presence of slip on the boundary would require the
presence of a zero-thickness vortex layer, which does not exist for t immediately after t = 0 +. The
above analysis is essentially identical to those by Lighthill (1963) and Batchelor (1967), who, however
do not carry this analysis any further.
The question that arises next is whether there exist other exceptional instants t + where a similar
phenomenon occurs. The answer is yes: anytime the velocity is discontinuous in time, a zero-thickness
vortex layer may be generated (and consequently the no-slip conditions are not satisfied). In order to
see this, note that Eq. (4.3), derived for inviscid flows, is applicable to this case as well. The
contribution of the vorticity in the fluid is still given by Eq. (4.4.a), where o~ now is still given by the
"initial conditions" at time t + (arrived at through the integration of the vorticity transport, Eq. 5.6).
The contribution of the vorticity in the solid region is still given by Eq. (4.4.b), where o~is known from
the prescribed motion of the solid region. Therefore, the only u n k n o w n in Eq. (4.3) is the solenoidal
vorticity distribution ~,. Again, since the surface is impermeable, the normal boundary condition is
responsible for the vorticity generation, and in general the no-slip condition cannot be satisfied.
The result obtained thus far pertains to the generation ofvorticity at anomalous instants times, t +,
where the velocity of the boundary is subject to sudden changes. However, this result is the key to the
formulation presented in this paper, and will be used to understand the process ofvorticity generation
in general (and to draw important conclusions about the relationship between viscous and inviscid
flows, Section 6).
In order to study the process of vorticity generation at a regular instant t (as distinct from the
anomalous instants ti, where the velocity of the points of the boundary has a time discontinuity), one
78 ComputationalMechanics 1 (1986)
may utilize the newly acquired understanding of vorticity generation at anomalous instants, by using
the following limiting process: replace the continuous motion of the solid region with a "jerky"
motion, i.e., assume that the continuous time-history of the velocity field is replaced with a piece-wise
continuous time-history, consisting of a sequence of impulsive accelerations. Within this modified
motion, we see that there exist a sequence of anomalous instants, infinitesimally close to each other,
with generation of infinitesimal vortex layers, which immediately diffuse during the infinitesimal
interval, dri, between two successive anomalous instants. Summarizing, if the actual motion is
replaced by a piece-wise continuous one (with instants of discontinuities ri, infinitesimally close and
velocity-discontinuities infinitesimally small), we can interpret the process of vorticity generation as
caused by the boundary condition on the normal derivative (with slip on the boundary) at the instants
"ci, which are followed by infinitesimally small intervals when diffusion (of the vorticity thus
generated) occurs.
It seems physically intuitive that as the intervals dv~ go to zero, the discontinuous motion tends to
the continuous motion: the vorticity is then continuously generated (by the normal boundary
condition) and immediately diffused (thereby automatically satisfying the no-slip condition). Some
points need further development, for instance the issue of vorticity generation between r~ and vi + a : it
is acknowledged that vorticity is also generated continuously between two successive instances, ~ and
~+1; however it seems plausible that this amount of vorticity generated continuously is small
compared to that generated at the instant ~. This issue is clearly important for the conceptual
understanding o f the continuous generation of the vorticity in the case of steady state flow around an
object. This case may be addressed by requiring the vorticity generated between ~ and ~ + 1 to be equal
to zero, by letting the solid region move with the fluid, i.e., applying, in the intervals dry, the equations
of fluid to the solid region as well. In any event, a rigorous mathematical proof of the limiting process
is obviously desirable. Nonetheless, in the following, the above results (obtained using the above
physically intuitive approach) are assumed to be valid, and some consequences that may be inferred
from the mechanism of vorticity generation outlined here are discussed.
It should be noted that the only concept used to differentiate between the Navier-Stokes equations
and the Euler equations is that of diffusion of vorticity, which is apparent from Eq. (5.6). However,
the diffusion of vorticity is not limited to the Navier-Stokes equations (Eq. 5.5), but is valid for any
viscous flow (Eq. 5.3). Therefore, the results presented here appear to be indeed valid for any viscous
flow.

6 Potential solution vs. viscous solution

The analysis of vorticity generation presented above is used next to clarify the relationship between
the Euler equations and the Navier-Stokes equations. The emphasis in this section is on the case of a
wing with a sharp trailing edge. More precisely, it will be shown that at least for attached flows around
a wing, the limit of the solution of the Navier-Stokes equations as the Reynolds number tends to
infinity is correctly captured by the Euler equations, provided that the trailing-edge condition
introduced in Section 3 is satisfied. As mentioned above, this condition is physically analogous to the
classical hypothesis introduced by Kutta (1902) and Joukowski (1907), but its mathematical necessity
for the current formulation is unrelated to that of the steady two-dimensional flows covered by Kutta
and Joukowski. For this reason, this condition will be referred to as the 'trailing-edge condition for
the Euler equations'.
In order to discuss the relationship between the Euler and the Navier-Stokes equations, it is
convenient to begin with the case of an impulsive start of a wing from a rest configuration. In this case,
as we have seen in Section 4 and 5, for both inviscid and viscous flows, the vorticity is obtained by
solving Eq. (4.6) with toy = tos = 0. Therefore, at time t = 0 +, the vorticity fields (and hence the velocity
fields) are equal, for inviscid and viscous flows. The difference starts immediately after t = 0 ÷ : for the
Navier-Stokes equations, the vorticity immediately diffuses in the surrounding and then is
transported, according to the vorticity evolution equation, by diffusion and convection. On the other
hand, for the Euler equations, the vorticity does not diffuse, and therefore it remains attached to the
surface of the boundary: possible exceptions are the points where the fluid leaves the boundary
(separation lines) and the trailing edge.
L. Morino: Helmhottz decomposition revisited: Vorticity generation and trailing edge condition. Part 1 79

In order to discuss this point further, let us consider again the case of a potential flow around a wing
with a sharp trailing edge. In this case, as mentioned in Section 3, if the velocity field is continuous
(this implies absence of wake), the solution to the Euler equations is unique. However, such a solution
is not in agreement with the physical problem (for instance, the lift is zero according to D'Alembert
paradox). Therefore, we have to assume that v is not necessarily continuous. In this case, the solution
is not unique: in addition to the solution with v continuous, a second solution may be built according
to the formulation of Section 3. The assumption used there is that if a vortex is created at the trailing
edge, such a vortex is immediately shed. This assumption appears necessary if we want our solution to
be the limit of the solution of the Navier-Stokes equations. For, even if the viscosity is infinitesimally
small, but not zero, the vortex would be diffused into its surroundings, and then convected
downstream away from the trailing edge. We therefore may conclude, on the basis of physical
reasoning, that in the case of a wing with a sharp trailing edge, the trailing-edge condition (of vortex
shedding at the trailing edge) must be satisfied if we want the solution to the Euler equations to be the
limit of the solution to the Navier-Stokes equations. A rigorous p r o o f is desirable here.
Next, it will be shown that, if Reynolds number, QUL/I~,is very high, the potential-flow solution
(i.e., the solution to the Euler equations for an initially irrotational flow, e.g., for v--0 at t = 0 ) is
actually a good approximation for the solution of the Navier-Stokes equations (except, of course,
within the boundary-layer and wake regions), provided that the flow is attached. In order to show
this, consider again the limiting process introduced in Section 5, with the continuous motion being
replaced by a discontinuous one with instants of discontinuity at t = "q. For the specific case of a wing
starting from rest, at t = rl > 0, the vorticity generated at t = 0 + (same for both the Navier-Stokes and
the Euler equations) is now diffused and convected for the viscous case, whereas for the inviscid one,
the vorticity is still attached to the wing, with some of it already shed from the trailing edge. At this
point, Eq. (4.6) should be used for the viscous flow (since the vorticity is now in the flow region),
whereas Eq. (3.22) should be used for the inviscid flow (for simplicity, the velocity in the solid region is
assumed to be solenoidal, i. e., 0s = 0). It is apparent that y on ob has a different physical meaning in the
two cases. For viscous flows, Eq. (4.6), ~,represents the new vorticity being generated: since the flow is
assumed to be attached, the vorticity already generated is distributed in a thin but finite-thickness
layer (boundary layer) near the surface of the wing.
On the other hand, for inviscid flows, Eq. (3.22), ~ includes both the vorticity already generated
and the new vorticity being generated. It is apparent that the motion of the vorticity over ab is
irrelevant, since no matter where the vorticity moves, the new vorticity y (sum of the old one,
convected to the new appropriate location on O'b, and of the one being generated) must satisfy
Eq. (3.22). However, if the two terms were separated, we would see that each term in Eq. (4.6) would
have a corresponding one in Eq. (3.22), and that the corresponding terms would be numerically close
to each other.
In order to show this note that if the vorticity is distributed within a thin layer L (bounded by the
surface a and having thickness 6), and if x is not within L, one obtains
to(y) d V ( y ) - ~ j ~'(Y)
f[S 4Ttlx_y I 4rclx_y t da(y) (6.1)
with
6
= j" e~d~ (6.2)
0
where ~ is in the direction normal to cr. Therefore the velocity fields induced by the existing vorticity
are very close to each other. The implication is that, in the two cases, the distributions of the vorticity
newly generated are very close to each other. [An improvement would be obtained by choosing a to be
the midsurface of the layer L (where the midsurface is located at the centroid of the vorticity
distribution as a function of~); as shown by Lighthill (1958, Section 3.4, 'mean vorticity approach'),
this is equivalent to the well known displacement thickness correction. The relationship between
Lighthill's work and the Helmholtz decomposition is further developed in Appendix C, where a new
approach to the concept of transpiration velocity is presented.]
In summary, for viscous flows, immediately after t = 0 +, the vorticity is completely in the fluid
region, but its integrated value (integrated along the boundary layer thickness) is very close to the
80 ComputationalMechanics 1 (1986)

intensity, 7, of the vortex layer on o-b for the inviscid case. Therefore, the vorticity emanating from the
trailing edge into the wake is similar in the two cases. Since the transport process is similar in the two
cases (Morino 1986), we may expect that at t = zl, the vorticity distributions in the wake are close to
each other. The reasoning presented above may be repeated to show that, immediately after z~, the
vorticity in the boundary layer of the viscous flow is very "close" to that on the surface o- for the
inviscid flow. Therefore, the process may be repeated and the result is valid for all times (provided that
the wing does not intercept its own wake, as in the case of a loop). We may conclude that the process of
vorticity generation and transport yields similar vorticity distributions for inviscid and viscous
problems, and therefore, very similar velocity distributions.
It should be emphasized that the issue of the limit as the Reynolds number goes to infinity has been
carefully avoided: the comparison has been presented more in terms of the closeness of the two
solutions, provided that the flow is attached in both cases. The next step is to address the limiting
process; it seems physically intuitive that the limit of the Navier-Stokes solution is the Euler solution.
However it is preferable to think of this limit as a mathematical limit (as a continuous function tends
to a discontinuous one, see, e.g., Bykhovskiy and Smirnov (1960)). The physical limiting process, as
the Reynolds number goes to infinity, requires a much more subtle process than that used here : in
particular, the issue of turbulence (and related issues of instabilities and chaotic behaviour) needs
much attention, considerably beyond the objectives of the present work.
It may be worth noting that Wu (1981) has shown that the forces acting on a body (starting from
rest) is given by a term related to the velocity of the body plus a term proportional to the first moment
of the vorticity in the fluid and in the solid. The implication of this result in the present context is that
(contrary to the commonly held belief) the potential flow formulation may be capable of predicting
(at least in theory) not only the lift, but also the drag (and not just the induced drag, but the viscous
drag as well !), because the corresponding vorticity distributions for viscous and inviscid flows are
indeed close to each other. Additional work is clearly needed on this issue.

7 Concluding remarks

The issue of the nonuniqueness of Helmholtz decomposition for the problem of the three dimensional
unsteady incompressible flow around a body has been addressed. A new approach has been
introduced, by embedding the solution into an infinite-space solution. Several results were obtained.
The first is that the mechanism of vorticity generation at the surface of the body may be explained
in terms of the normal boundary conditions; this is true whether the fluid is viscous or inviscid. If the
fluid is viscous, the vorticity immediately diffuses into the surroundings of the surface of the body,
whereas, if the fluid is inviscid, it remains attached to the surface. As mentioned above, this general
result was anticipated quite clearly by Lighthill (1963) and Batchelor (1967), at least for the vorticity
generation at time t = 0, for the case of a body impulsively starting from rest.
The second result pertains to the relationship between the Euler solution and the Navier-Stokes
solution for the problem of a wing with a sharp trailing edge. It was shown that in order for the Euler
solution to be the limit of the Navier-Stokes solution the condition of vortex shedding at the trailing
edge must be added. If this condition is satisfied, then the Euler equations actually give a solution that
is very close to that of the Navier-Stokes equations. We may anticipate that (turbulence not
withstanding) the limit of the Navier-Stokes solution is equal to the solution of the Euler equations
provided that the trailing-edge condition is satisfied. A rigorous proof appears desirable here. [A
theorem on the Euler solution being the limit of the Navier-Stokes solution is given by
Ladyzhenskaya (1963) who however does not address.the wing problem and the issue of the trailing-
edge condition.]
The analysis presented in this paper is limited to simply-connected three-dimensional fluid
regions. If-the flow is two dimensional the region is not simply connected. In this case the solution of
the integral equation for vorticity generation (two-dimensional equivalent of Eq. 4.6) is not unique.
This is the mathematical reason for the condition introduced by Kutta (1902) and Joukowski (1907),
which is clearly different from that for the trailing-edge condition introduced here. In the present
context (unsteady analysis) the nonuniqueness of the flow around an airfoil is simply resolved by
noting that according to Kelvin's theorem (which is applicable for a contour surrounding the airfoil
L. Morino: Helmholtzdecompositionrevisited: Vorticitygenerationand trailing edgecondition.Part 1 81

but so far away from it that the viscous stresses are negligible), the total vorticity (in the whole plane,
including the solid region) remains constant. This condition is obviously sufficient to eliminate the
nonuniqueness because the eigensolution of the problem has circulation different from zero. The
implication is that the Kutta-Joukowski condition is needed only for steady flows in multiply
connected regions, in particular for two-dimensional flows. For steady flows aroundsimply
connected regions, the velocity for given vorticity and expansion distributions is unique if its normal
component is prescribed at the boundary (see end of Section 2). Similarly, if the flow is unsteady, the
two-dimensional solution is unique because the circulation connected with the region is determined
by the Kelvin theorem and by the initial conditions. [For unsteady three-dimensional flows around
multiply-connected regions, the issue may be addressed using the decomposition of Bykhovskiy and
Smirnov (1960), who show that if the fluid region is (n + 1)-connected, there exist n eigensolutions to
the problem: this nonuniqueness is eliminated in the unsteady problem using a similar process around
each irreducible contour.]
A third result obtained here is that the solution may be obtained by studying a sequence of
impulsive accelerations, with generation of vorticity obtained by imposing the normal boundary
condition followed by intervals of diffusion of the vorticity away from the boundary (with tangential
boundary conditions automatically satisfied once the vorticity is diffused). An obvious question at
this point is: can the above process be used for a computational methodology? The answer is yes. The
actual implementation is given in the work by Del Marco (1986). Preliminary numerical results
confirm that the tangential boundary condition is automatically satisfied (within numerical
approximations) by the representation proposed here. This approach is closely related to that of Wu's
(1976, 1982, 1984); a comparison with Wu's approach is presented in Appendix B.
A spontaneous question at this point is: "How does one reconcile the above formulation with the
case of a zero-thickness planar wing at zero angle of attack? In this case, the normal boundary
condition is automatically satisfied, and there is no generation of vorticity in the inviscid flow !" The
answer stems from the fact that the analysis presented in this paper deals with flow around a closed
surface, surrounding a finite-volume region. Therefore what happens in the case of a zero-thickness
wing at zero angle of attack is best seen in the limit as the thickness approaches zero. If the thickness is
small but finite we have two layers of X,orticity (on the upper and lower surface respectively). The
separate identity of the two layers disappears as the thickness of the wing goes to zero. In this case the
normal boundary condition generates only the sum of the two layers (as in the case of a zero-thickness
wing at an angle of attack): the difference of the vorticity on the two layers disappears as the two
layers merge into one. This implies that the intensity of the (equal and opposite) vorticity in the two
layers may be evaluated by examining the difference between the velocity in the fluid region and that
in the solid region. Similar problems arise in studying the flow of air around an isolated building.
Using the method of images the normal boundary condition at the ground is automatically satisfied;
again the vortex layer existent at the ground has to be evaluated by examining the slip between the
velocity of the air and that of the ground.
Finally, a new approach to the concept of transpiration velocity (introduced by Lighthill (1958)
for the analysis of the inviscid-viscous interaction) is presented in Appendix C, where it is shown that
the expression for the transpiration velocity (derived by Lighthill under the assumption of
incompressible flows) is very general: (.1) it is not limited to thin boundary layers, and (2) it is not
limited to incompressible flows, but is indeed applicable to unsteady compressible flows as well (this
expression differs from that commonly used for compressible flows, an expression that is limited to
steady flows (see, e.g., Lemmerman and Sonnad (1979)).
Issues that need further attention include compressibility and turbulence. Compressibility has
been briefly discussed in Appendix C in connection with the discussion on the transpiration velocity.
Also, a general theory of the Helmholtz decomposition for compressible viscous flows has been
developed by Morino (1985). However, the discussion of the issue of the boundary condition on the
vorticity is missing in that work. The integration of that work with the defect-velocity approach of
Appendix C (as well as the extension of the infinite-space approach to compressible flows) is the
subject of Part II of this work (currently in preparation).
On the other hand, a few comments should be made on the issue of turbulence. As mentioned in
Section 6, the limiting process, as the Reynolds number goes to infinity, requires careful analysis of the
issue of turbulence, considerably beyond the objectives of the present work. On the other hand, as
82 Computational Mechanics 1 (1986)

pointed out above, the formulation of Section 5 is valid in theory whether the flow is turbulent or
laminar. However, the computational implementation requires considerable amount of additional
work, on the issues of vorticity dynamics (including turbulence modelling) and on the issue of an
efficient formulation for the boundary conditions, even for the limited case of inviscid flows. The
solution of the vorticity evolution is partially addressed by Morino (1986) and considerable
additional work is anticipated. On the other hand, the formulation for the boundary condition (in
particular the diffusion of the vorticity within the laminar sublayer) is in principle identical to that
presented here: however, a computational formulation for a grid size larger than the laminar sublayer
needs to be developed (along the lines of the work by Wu and Sugavanam 1982), if the efficiency of the
method is to be retained.

Acknowledgements
This work was partially supported by the NASA grant NAG-I-564 to Boston University. The author wishes to express his
appreciation to Dr. E. Carson Yates, Jr., technical monitor of the grant, for the help received in connection with this work, to
Prof. C. Samuel Ventres for his insightful comments and constructive criticism, and to Dr. Stephen Del Marco, for the
invaluable discussions, in particular on the work of Bykhovskiy and Smirnov.

References
Batchelor, G.K. (1967): An introduction to fluid dynamics. Cambridge: Cambridge Univers. Press
Bykhovskiy, E.B. ; Smirnov, N.V. (1960): On orthogonal expansions of the space of vector functions which are square-
summable over a given domain and the vector analysis operators. Trudy Mat. Inst. Steklova 59, 5. Academy of Sciences
USSR Press, pp. 5-36. (Also available as NASA TM-77051, 1983)
Campbell, R.G. (1973): Foundations of fluid flow theory, p. 258. Reading: Addison-Wesley Publ.
Del Marco, S.P. (1986): The mathematical foundations of the scalar-vector potential approach to analysing viscous flows.
Ph.D. Thesis, Boston Univers. Dept. of Mathematics
E1 Refaee, M.M.; Wu, J.C. ; Lekoudis, S.G. (1982): Solutions of the compressible Navier-Stokes equations using the integral
method. AIAA J. 20, 356-362
Hess, J.L. (1977): A fully automatic combined potential-flow boundary layer procedure for calculation viscous effects on the
lifts and pressure distributions of arbitrary three-dimensional configurations. Long Beach: Douglas Aircraft Co., MDC
J7491
Hirasaki, G.J. ; Hellums, J.D. (1968): A general formulation of the boundary conditions of the vector potential in three-
dimensional hydrodynamics. Quart. Appl. Math. 26, 331-342
Hirasaki, G.J.; Hellums, J.D. (1970): Boundary conditions on the vector and scalar potentials in viscous three-dimensional
hydrodynamics. Quart. Appl. Math. 28, 293-296
Joukowski, N. (1907) : On the adjunct vortices, (in Russian). Obshchestvo liubitelei estestvoznaniia, antropologii i etnografee,
Moskva, Izaviestiia, 112, Transactions of the Physical Section, vol. 13, pp. 12-25
Kutta, J. (1902): Auftriebskr/ifte in str6menden Fliissigkeiten. Illustrierte Aueronautische Mitteilungen, vol. 6, pp. 133-135
Ladyzhenskaya, O.A. (1963): The mathematical theory of viscous incompressible flows. New York: Gordon and Bread
Lamb, H. (1932): Hydrodynamics, 6th ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Lemmerman, L.A. ; Sonnad, V.R. (1979) : Three-dimensional viscous-inviscidcoupling using surface transpiration. J. Aircraft
16, 353-358
Lighthill, M.J. (1958): On displacement thickness. J. Fluid Mech. 4, 383-392
Lighthill, M.J. (1963): Introduction to boundary layer theory. In: Rosenhead, L. (ed): Laminar boundary layers, part 2,
pp. 46-]13. Oxford: Oxford University Press
Maskew, B. (1982) : Prediction of subsonic aerodynamic characteristics: A case for low-order panel methods. J. Aircraft 19,
157-163
Morino, L. (1973): Unsteady compressible flow around lifting bodies: General theory. AIAA Paper No. 73-196, AIAA l lth
Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Washington, D.C.
Morino, U (1974): A general theory of unsteady compressible potential aerodynamics. NASA CR-2464
Morino, U (1985): Scalar/vector potential formulation for compressible viscous unsteady flows. NASA CR-3921
Morino, L. (1986): Material contravariant components: Vorticity transport and vortex theorems. AIAA J. 26, No. 3,526-528
Morino, L. ; Bharadvaj, B. (1985): Two methods for viscous and inviscid free-wake analysis of helicopter rotors. Boston:
Boston University, CCAD-TR-85-02
Morino, U ; Kaprielian, Z., Jr. ; Sipcic, S.R. (1985): Free wake analysis of helicopter rotors. Vertica 9, 127-140
Morino, L. ; Kuo, C.C. (1974): Subsonic potential aerodynamics for complex configurations: A general theory. AIAA J. 12,
191-197
Morton, B.R. (1984): The generation and decay of vorticity. Geophys. Astrophys. Fluid Dynamics 28,277-308
Quartapelle, L. ; Valz-Gris, F. (1981): Projection conditions on the vorticity in viscous incompressible flows. Internal. J. for
Numerical Methods in Fluids, 1, 129-144
L. Morino: Helmholtz decomposition revisited: Vorticity generation and trailing edge condition. Part 1 83

Richardson, S.M. ; Cornish, A.R.H. (1977) : Solution of three-dimensional incompressible flow problems. J. Fluid Mech. 82,
309-319
Serrin, F. (1959): Mathematical principle of classical fluid mechanics. In: Fluegge, S. (ed): Encyclopedia of physics, Vol.
VIII/l, Fluid Dynamics I. Berlin, G6ttingen, Heidelberg: Springer
Soohoo, P.; Noll, R.B.; Morino, L.; Ham, N.D. (1978): Rotor wake effects on hub/pylon flow, vol. 1, Theoretical
formulation. Appl. Technology Lab., U.S. Army Research and Technology Laboratories (AVRADCOM), Fort Eustis,
Va., USARTL-TR-78-1A, p. 108
Sugavanam, A. ; Wu, J.C. (1982) : Numerical study of separated turbulent flow over airfoils. AIAA J. 20, 464-470
Thompson, J.F. ; Shanks, S.P. ; Wu, J.C.(1974): Numerical solution of three-dimensional Navier-Stokes equations showing
trailing edge vortices. AIAA J. 12, 787-794
Weyl, H. (1940): The method of orthogonal projection in potential theory. Duke Math. J. 7, 411-444
Wu, J.C. (1976): Numerical boundary conditions for viscous flow problems. AIAA J. 14, 1042-1049
Wu, J.C. (1981): Aerodynamic force and moment in steady and time-dependent viscous flows. AIAA J. 19, 432-441
Wu, J.C. (1982): Problems of general viscous flows. In: Shaw, R.P., Banerjee, P.K. (eds): Developments in boundary element
methods, vol. 2, Chpt. 4, pp. 69-109. London: Applied Sci.
Wu, J.C. (1984): Fundamental solutions and numerical methods for flow problems. Intern. J. Numer. Meth. in Fluid 4,
185-201

Appendix A: Decomposition of Bykhovskiy and Smirnov

In this Appendix the relationship of this work with the decomposition of Bykhovskiy and Smirnov
(1960) is discussed. In Section 2 we saw that the Helmholtz decomposition for the infinite space is
unique. Now consider the decomposition for a finite region. The simplest results are obtained for
interior problems (region inside a surface a); therefore, this case is considered first. More specifically,
the volume V is assumed to be simply connected, and without holes, unless otherwise stated (see
Bykhovskiy and Smirnov (1960) for the general case). In order to conform with the convention used in
the main body of this work (that, for external flows, the normal is outwardly directed) in this
Appendix the normal is assumed to be pointing into V even for interior problems.
Following Bykhovskiy and Smirnov (1960), the decomposition for this case may be made unique
by arbitrarily choosing the convenient boundary condition
V x A.n=0 (A.I)
It may be worth noting that Eq. (4.1), introduced by Bykhovskiy and Smirnov (1960), insures that
vl = V~b and v2 = V x A belong to orthogonal vector spaces, i.e.,
~J'S v,. v2dV=0 (A.2)
v
For, using Eq. (A.1) one obtains
~ Vdp. V x a d V = ~ (oV x A . ndo-=0 (A.3)
V a
Equation A.I implies that ¢ satisfies Eq. (2.3) with
8¢
8n = vb" n (A.4)

For simply connected regions, the solution for ¢ is unique, and therefore the decomposition is unique
(for multiply-connected regions, see Bykhovskiy and Smirnov, 1960).
Next, we want to show that if A satisfies Eq. (2.6), then a necessary and sufficient condition for
Eq. (2.2) to be satisfied is that
V.A=0 on a (A.5)
In order to see that, note that Eq. (2.2) implies Eq. (A.5). Viceversa, taking the divergence of Eq. (2.6)
one obtains V2(V • A)=0, which, with Eq. (A.5), yields V. A - 0 , i.e., Eq. (2.2).
Equations (2.6, A. 1) and (A. 5) represent a system of three equations for three unknowns With only
two boundary conditions. The implication is that, although Eq. (A. 1) makes the decomposition of the
velocity field unique (and therefore V × A unique), A is still not unique : for, if A is a solution, then
84 ComputationalMechanics 1 (1986)

A' = A + VZ gives the same values for V × A. It may be noted that since both A and A' are solenoidal,
X must be harmonic.
In order to obtain a unique solution for A, we may take advantage of this arbitrariness in A and
obtain a convenient additional boundary condition for A, as follows. Equation (A. 1) implies that if A
is a solution, there exists a function ~ such that
At=V,~~ on ab (A.6)
where V, is the surface gradient operator and At is the portion of the vector A tangential to the surface
a (for, Eq. A. 1 yields ~ A. dx = 0 for any C on a, and hence i A. dx is path independent and defines
C xo
a function :~(x) such that V~2= At). Consider the harmonic function Z that is equal to ~ on a. As
mentioned above, we can subtract VZ from A without affecting V x A. This implies that we can
eliminate the arbitrariness in A by imposing the convenient boundary condition
At=O on a (A.7)
If Eq. (A.7) is satisfied, Eq. A.1 is automatically satisfied, whereas Eq. (A.5) reduces to

~VaA"-o on a (A.8)
~n
(where A, is the normal component of A and a is the determinant of the surface metric tensor for
surfaces parallel to a, so that da = ]//ad~ld~2; if ¢ 1 and ~z are orthogonal coordinates then, using
familiar symbols, ]//a-= h l h 2 ) .
Note that the above conditions uniquely define A for a region that is surface-wise simply connected
(i. e., a region without holes). For, using the same reasoning used above, two solutions would differ by
a factor VZ, where Z is harmonic and (Eq. A.7) constant on a; this yields that Z is constant in V and
therefore A is unique. On the other hand if the region has a hole (e. g., in the case of the exterior
problem), V,Z = 0 may be satisfied by using a different constant for each surface: therefore, in this
case, the solution for A is not unique.
It may be worth noting that using the integral identity

III Va,.Vai+a'V2a d V = - ~ "'~-n da (A.9)

V a

one may see that the solution would be unique if At and ~A,/~n were prescribed instead.
In conclusion, we have obtained for a simply connected region without holes, that by imposing the
condition (A.1), and conveniently choosing the arbitrariness in A, the field has been decomposed
uniquely into two vector fields, V4~ and V x A (which are orthogonal in the sense that they satisfy
Eq. 5.4), where q~and A are both unique; ~bsatisfies Eqs. (2.3) and (A.4), whereas A satisfies Eq. (2.6)
with boundary condition given by Eqs. (A.7) and (A.8). The function q~ satisfies the equation

Un I CUnn da(Y)+/SIv4=lx-yl
If x is on a Eq. (A. t0) is an integral equation which may be used to obtain q~on a (Section 3). If the
region is not simply connected, ~b may be multivalued, and the solution is not unique: it becomes
unique by specifying the circulation around each irreducible path (if ck is continuous, the solution is
unique; this corresponds to choosing all the circulations to be zero).
Similarly, the function A satisfies the equation

E(x)A(x)=~ ~nn -4n~--y I A ~n 4n~--rl da(Y)+lIIv47tlx-y[

Using Eqs. (A.7) and (A.8), and recalling that d a = ~ / a d ~ l d ¢ 2, Eq. (A.11) reduces to
~At -1 ]//-dd~l de 2
E(x)A(x)=~en 4~[x_y I

A.. 47tlx_y I 4 lx_y I

L. Morino: Helmholtz decomposition revisited: Vorticity generation and trailing edge condition. Part 1 85

If x is on o- Eq. (A.12) is an integral equation which may be used to obtain A, and OA~/~n(recall
however that the solution for A is unique only for regions without holes; see discussion following
Eq. A.8).
Next, the relationship between the above decomposition (applied to the exterior problem) and
that of Section 4 is discussed. First consider w~" outside a, this term coincides with the term V~b,since
they are both potential outside a, and satisfy the same boundary condition. Next consider the term
w~" note that w" is identically equal to zero outside a, and therefore need not be included in the
decomposition of Bykhovskiy and Smirnov (1960). As shown in Section 6, however, the inclusion of
this term is essential for the understanding of the mechanism of vorticity generation.
Finally consider the term w.}. In order to show that w} is a particular solution of Eq. (2.6) with
boundary conditions (A. 1) and (A.5) (not necessarily A.7), it is convenient to recast w} in a different
form. Note that the velocity w} may be written as
co(y)
w>(x) : V~ x y:: 4rclx_Y I dV(y)+V x 4rclx_y [ dot(y) (A.13)
with
~}=Tf+?y (A.14)
where ~y is the intensity of the vorticity in the infinitesimally thin layer L: (note that whereas ?y in L:
was defined in a nonunique fashion, ~s compensates for that arbitrariness and therefore ~} is unique).
Next we want to show that Equation (A. 13) may be rewritten as
w'f(x) = Vx x A}(x) (A. 15)
where
A}(x)=V~ x SSS 4~]~(Y2~,[,,~
.~ dV(y) (A.16)
D
For, note that, using Gauss Theorem (with n directed into VI),
1 1
A}(x)=SS S 4 [x-y[ × w}(y)dV(y) = -SSS vy 4rc[x-y[ × w'f(y)dV(y)
D D
=SSS Vy x w}(y) dV(y)
v, 4rclx-yl
n x w}
4rclx-yl de(y) (A.17)
[Alternatively, note that, for any function f and for E given by Eq. (3.13),
~E
S~R!VyE(y)f(y)d V(y) = Y~R3~nn nf(y) (y)d V(y) = ~ f(y) n (y)da(y) (A. 18)

Then
v, x (Ew:)
A~(x)=Vx x ~ E(y)4~[}x(Y2y[ dV(Y)=Sd: 47fix-Y] dV(y)
EVy X W~f VyE x w's
=S~3~ 4rc[x-y] dV(y)+y~f 4rc[x-y] dV(y)
ti
co(y) dV(y)+~ xw)
=S~S
v: arc[x-y[ 4rclx_y I da(y) (A.19)

in agreement with Eq. A. 17.] Recalling that w)= 0 inside a, we notice that
y = n x w} (A.20)
and therefore Eqs. (A. 15) and (A. 16) are equivalent to Eq. (A. 13). The advantage of Eq. (A. 16) is that
it shows clearly that A) is solenoidal, and that Eq. (2.2) (and hence Eq. A.5) is satisfied: thus it is
apparent that both A and A) satisfy Eq. (2.6) with the boundary conditions Eqs. (A.I) (see
86 ComputationalMechanics I (1986)

Eq. 4.1 1.a) and (A.5), and therefore V x A and w} coincide. However, A) does not necessarily satisfy
Eq. (A.7), and therefore A and A) may differ by the arbitrary term V;~ discussed in introducing
Eq. (A.7).

Appendix B: Helmhoitz decomposition in fluid dynamics

This Appendix deals with the use of Helmholtz decomposition as the basis of computational methods
for the solution of viscous incompressible flows, with emphasis on the works of Hirasaki and Hellum
(1970), Quartapelle and Valz-Gris (1981) and Wu (1976, 1982, 1984). None of the theoretical fluid
dynamics issues that are discussed in the main body of this paper are addressed in the above works.
Therefore, this Appendix is limited to the computational aspects of the present formulatuion. The
same convention used in Appendix A (i.e., that, the normal is pointing into V, even for interior
problems) is used in this Appendix.
The problem is governed by Eq. (2.3) (with 0 = 0) for the scalar potential, Eq. (2.6) for the vector
potential, and Eq. (5.6) for the vorticity. The boundary condition for the scalar potential is given by
Eq. (A.4) (which with Eq. A.1) guarantees the normal boundary condition is satisfied). Also,
eliminating 09 between Eq. (5.6) (for the vorticity) and Eq. (2.6) (for the scalar potential) one obtains a
fourth order partial differential equation for A, which involves the bi-Laplacian of A. This equation
requires six scalar boundary conditions on a. Three of these are given by Eqs. (A.7) and (A.8); two
more are obtained by imposing the no-slip conditions which may be written as (Eqs. 5.1 and 2.1)
n x V x A = n x v b - n x V~p (B.1)
and the last one is obtained by imposing that 09 is solenoidal
V.09=0 on rr (B.2)
(Note that the fact that the normal component of the vorticity is continuous at the boundary
09. n =09b" n (B.3)
is a consequence of Eq. (B.1) and therefore, to the contrary of the assumption of Quartapelle and
Valz-Gris (1981), it cannot be used as an independent boundary condition.)
The above six conditions plus the initial conditions on 09 appear to be sufficient to determine
uniquely ~b,A and 09, at least for a simply connected region without holes (see comments following Eq.
A.8). As pointed out by Quartapelle and Valz-Gris (1981) the problem arises only when one wants to
solve the two problems (the one of A and that for 09) independently. In this case we have too many
(five) conditions on A and not enough on 09 (only one).
Hirasaki and Helium (1970) resolve the problem by finding the vorticity through an iterative
process. More elegant is the approach used by Quartapelle and Valz-Gris (1981), who use the
equation V2A = -09 (Eq. 2.6) to "shift" two of the boundary conditions on A into conditions (of
integral type) on 09. This is obtained by using the integral relation (for n pointing into the volume V)
lJ'J" (a.V x V x h - b . V xV x a ) d V = - ~ ( a . n x V x h - h . n x V x a)da (B.4)
V a

If a = A (satisfying Eqs. 2.2, 2.5, 2.6, A.7 and B.1) and b = B one obtains that the equation
~y B.09dV= - ~ B. n x (vb-V~p)da (B.5)
V a

must be satisfied for all B such that V x V x B = 0 (Eq. 38 of Quartapelle and Valz-Gris 1981). This is a
constraint on the distribution of the vorticity, which is used to determine the vorticity on the
boundary in the finite-difference scheme used by Quartapelle and Valz-Gris (1981): two conditions
on A may now be dropped, in order to have three conditions on A and three on 09. It seems natural to
drop Eq. (B.1). [It may be worth noting that in this case Eq. (B.3) is now an independent condition,
and may be included in the formulation. Therefore only one scalar integral condition is actually
needed on o9. The process whereby the three scalar conditions expressed by Eq. (B.5) yield one (or two)
conditions o n 09 is not addressed by Quartapelle and Valz-Gris (1981)].
L. Morino: Helmholtzdecompositionrevisited:Vorticitygenerationand trailing edgecondition.Part 1 87

A similar approach, more closely related to that of this paper, is used by Wu (see, e. g., Wu 1976,
1982, 1984). The major difference between Wu's approach and that of this work (as well as that of
Quartapelle and Valz-Griz (1981)) is that Wu addresses the issue directly on the discretized
formulation and limits himself to 'computational boundary conditions' (lacking, for instance, the
interpretation of his condition as the physical generation ofvorticity). In his analysis, the values of the
vorticity at the boundary-nodes are unknown; therefore conditions for the evaluation of those values
are necessary.
Nonetheless, Wu's computational formulation is closely related to that presented in Section 5 (as
well as the numerical implementation by Del Marco (1986). Because of the similarity of these two
formulations, a detailed analysis of Wu's work (amongst the best computational work in the field, in
this author's opinion) is presented here. Wu uses a decomposition different from those examined thus
far. The decomposition used in the main body of this paper was obtained from the infinite-space
unique decomposition by arbitrarily choosing the velocity inside a to be equal to that of the solid
region. The decomposition used by Wu may be obtained by choosing, also arbitrarily, that the
velocity field is equal to zero inside the surface tr (in the frame of reference connected with the
undisturbed air). In this case, applying to Eq. (2.12) (with 0 = to = 0 inside a) the same procedure used
to derive Eq. (A.17) (or A.19) one obtains (for n pointing into the volume V)

v(x)= -Vx ~!~ Vy.v(y) dV(y)+V~xj'~ Vyxv(y)

4~zlx-Yl v 4rc]x-Yl dV(y)

n(y). v(y) do-(y) +V~ x ~ n(y) x v(y) (B.6)

-Vx 4 [x_y I . 4=]x_y I da(y)
Equation B.6 is a decomposition for the exterior problem which is actually used by Wu (1976, 1982,
1984), as the basis for his computational scheme. (By comparing Eq. B.6 with Eq. A. 10 we see that the
scalar-potential contribution in Eq. B.6 does not satisfy Eq. A. 10, and therefore this decomposition
does not fall within the type of decomposition introduced by Bykhovskiy and Smirnov 1960.)
In analyzing the mathematical meaning of Eq. (B.6), Wu reaches conclusions similar to those of
Quartapelle and Valz-Gris, that the conditions on the vorticity must be of integral type: "the
specifications of both the normal and tangential components of velocity on a overspecifies the
problem. It should be pointed out that both the normal and the tangential velocity components are
prescribed by the physics of the problem; and both appear in the boundary integral equation, Eq.
(B.6). The use of Eq. (B.6) therefore appears to overspecify the kinematics of the problem. In reality,
the prescription of both the normal and the tangential velocity component places a kinematic
restriction on the distribution of vorticity in V. This restriction permits the boundary vorticity values
to be determined. Detailed discussions of the use of Eq. (B.6) in the computation of the boundary
vorticity values are presented in Wu (1976)." (Quotes are from Wu 1984, with minor modifications
introduced to conform with the notation and the equation numbering of this paper.) Unfortunately,
the detailed discussions (on the computation of the boundary vorticity) presented in Wu (1976) are
limited to two-dimensional problem. [Three-dimensional problems are considered by Thompson et
al. (1974): however the issue on the boundary conditions is resolved by an iterative scheme similar to
that of Hirasaki and Hellums (1970). No recent work by Wu and his associates deals with three-
dimensional flows.]
Equation (B.6) is fully equivalent to Eq. (4.3), which may be obtained from Eq. (B.6) by adding a
similar expression for the solid region and allowing for a tangential discontinuity between the fluid
and the solid on the boundary. The major difference between the approach of this paper and that of
Wu is the following. In this paper the phenomenon is studied as a the limit of a sequence of impulsive
accelerations (when the classical no-slip condition is violated) followed by intervals when diffusion
occurs. Wu, on the other hand, assumes that both normal and no-slip boundary conditions are
satisfied. Accordingly, Eq. (B.6) is seen by Wu as a computational condition (expressed directly on the
discretized form of Eq. B.6), without the physical interpretation (in terms of generation of vorticity)
introduced here. Therefore, in his formulation the normal condition and the tangential condition
appear to be interchangeable : typically (although not exclusively) Wu chooses to use the tangential
condition (inStead of the normal condition used here) to evaluate the vorticity on the boundary; he
88 Computational Mechanics 1 (1986)
distributes the vorticity over a finite thickness (half the size of the mesh-grid). The normal boundary
condition then is automatically satisfied (within numerical approximations).
The advantage of the infinite-space approach used here is that the simplicity (and uniqueness) of
the representation facilitates the physical interpretation on the formulation in terms of vorticity
generation and diffusion. This interpretation yields almost as a necessity that the normal, not the
tangential condition, must be imposed. This result is crucial in this paper because of its consequences
on theoretical issues: for instance the applicability of Eq. (4.6) to both viscous and inviscid flows,
allows for the analysis of the relationship between the Euler solutions and the Navier-Stokes solutions
presented in Section 6.
Besides its theoretical interest, the approach used here has computational implications, for
instance the fact that the thickness of the vorticity layer at the boundary is ] / / ~ (a consideration
missing in Wu's analysis). Also note that, for the case of a body in a uniform stream, the
representation used here reduces to

~o(y)
v(x)=Vxxfllv 4rclx-y[ dV(y) (B.7)

which is considerably simpler than Wu's (see Eq. B.6, with 0 = 0 in Vs : in this case, the two surface
integrals in Eq. B.6 happen to be equal and opposite, a fact not immediately apparent from Wu's
formulation, even in the two-dimensional problem).
Even more important is the simplicity of the present formulation for the case of three dimensional
flows. The extension of Wu's formulation to three-dimensional flows (e. g., the number of integral
conditions required on co, see discussion following Eq. B.6) is not immediately apparent (for instance,
one scalar condition appears to be sufficient if both Eqs. B.3 and B.4 are used; the discussion of this
and other subtle issues for the three-dimensional flow analysis is missing in Wu's work).
But the problem with Wu's formulation ultimately lies in the difficulty in extending it to
compressible flows. For, Eq. (B.6) is useful if 0 is known. However, in fluid dynamics 0 is equal to
~2(~/~t2 divided by the square of the speed of sound (plus nonlinear or higher order terms, see Morino,
1985). The implication is that the equation governing q~ is actually the wave equation rather than
Poisson equation, making Wu's approach not easy to use for compressible flows (see for instance E1
Refaee et al., 1982). The formulation of the problem simplifies considerably using the approach of
Morino (1985), i.e., starting directly from the differential equation and using the Green's function for
the wave equation, written in a frame of reference connected with the solid region (Morino, 1974).
Details of this formulation are presented in Part II of this paper (see also Appendix C).

Appendix C: On transpiration velocity: The defect velocity approach

This Appendix deals with the relationship of the present work with the classical work of Lighthill
(1958) on displacement thickness: in this classical paper, Lighthill presents four different methods to
study the interaction between the boundary layer region and the outer region for three-dimensional
incompressible flows. These include:
(1) flow reduction,
(2) equivalent sources,
(3) velocity comparison,
(4) mean velocity.
The use of the mean-vorticity approach in connection with the present work was discussed in
Section 6 (see discussion following Eq. 6.2). In this Appendix, it will be shown how the other
approaches in Lighthill's work, in particular the equivalent-source approach (now better known as
the transpiration-velocity approach, see, e.g., Hess 1977, and Lemmerman and Sonnad 1979) are
related to the Helmholtz decomposition. In particular, using a different type of decomposition, it will
be shown that the transpiration velocity formulation may be interpreted directly in terms of
Helmholtz decomposition. It will be shown that (contrary to the displacement thickness formulation)
L. Morino: Helmholtz decomposition revisited: Vorticity generation and trailing edge condition. Part 1 89

the transpiration-velocity formulation is indeed exact (in the sense that it does not contain errors of
the order of magnitude of the boundary layer thickness formulation). In addition, it will be shown
that the same expression introduced by Lighthill (1958) for incompressible flows is valid even for
unsteady compressible flows: the usual expression used for compressible flows (e. g., Lemmerman
and Sonnad 1979) is limited to steady compressible flows.
For the sake of clarity, it is convenient to start the discussion with the case of a symmetric wing at
zero angle of attack. The vorticity is then limited to a finite region around the wing (a boundary layer
region plus a small wake region). Outside this region, the flow is potential and may be expressed as
Vq~'. Let q~ be an harmonic function defined in the whole fluid region and equal to ~b' outside the
vortical region. This definition involves a process of continuation for harmonic functions (which for
the two-dimensional case, reduces to the well known continuation of analytic functions of complex
variables); some issue connected with this process are discussed later in connection with the problem
of a wing at an angle attack).
According to the results of Section 2, the difference between v and V~b', (i. e., the velocity correction
or 'defect velocity' due to the presence of the vorticity in the field) may be expressed in terms of a
vector potential. Indicating with re the external velocity (re = Vq~) and with ra the defect velocity due to
the vorticity, we may write
V=Ve+Vd (C.1)
Recall that the defect velocity, Vd is the contribution due to the vector potential: therefore Vd is
solenoidal and satisfies the equation

-hih2h3 ~xl (h2h3vai)+ Ox3 (h~h2va3) = 0

(hlh3Va2)+~
(where xl, x2 and x3 are orthogonal curvilinear coordinates) and
1 (C.2)

va=0 (C.3)
outside the boundary layer and wake region.
For any point x on the surface of the boundary surface o-, one may choose the x3 coordinate to be
the arclength in the direction of the outer normal n (this implies h3 = 1) and x 3 = 0 on o-. Then,
indicating with 3 the thickness of the vortical region, and using Eq. (C.3), Eq. (C.2) may be integrated
to yield

Va" n= -- (heval) (hlVa2) dx 3 on a (C.4)

haoh2o o ~ ~x2
Next using Eq. (C. 1), one obtains that the normal boundary condition for q~may be expressed as
(Eq. 3.3)
8q~
an r b ' n - - r d ' , on~ (C.5)

where vb is the velocity of the body.

Equation (C.5) is equal to that of a body with flux through the surface a (e. g., the inlet of a nacelle)
with velocity equal to - ra" n; hence, this term is called 'transpiration velocity' and is indicated with
vtr. Using Eqs. (C.1) and (C.4), one obtains

vtr= -va'n-hioh2o o ~xl [h2(Vei--Vl)]'k- [hl(Ve~-V2)] dx3 (C.6)

which is a slight generalization of Eq. (25) of Lighthill (1958), where Ve~is not included because of the
approximation used in the expression for the boundary conditions (also, Lighthill uses the
assumption that ~hl/©x3 = Ohz/OX3 = 0; this assumption, typically not satisfied in actual applications,
is not necessary and is not used here).
It may be worth noting that the assumption of the boundary layer thickness being small was not
used in the derivation (this is essentially true for Lighthill's formulation as well). Hence the derivation
is valid even if the vortical region is not small (actually it is valid even if va is not zero outside the
90 C o m p u t a t i o n a l M e c h a n i c s I (1986)

vortical region; in this case the integration should be extended to infinity). Therefore the formulation
is applicable, at least in principle, to the general case, even to the case of a wing at an angle of attack
with separated flow. In this case, however, a more efficient approach appears desirable and is
discussed later in this Appendix. [It should be pointed out that the link between transpiration velocity
and displacement thickness is provided by Lighthill's velocity comparison approach, where higher
order terms in 6 are neglected. Therefore, the displacement thickness formulation is not necessarily
exact.]
It should be noted that the formulation used here to derive Eq. (C.6) is different from that used by
Lighthill, and has a major advantage over Lighthill's : it is valid for compressible unsteady flows as
well. In order to show this, note that the key in the present formulation consists of recognizing that the
defect velocity (difference between the fluid velocity and the continuation of the external velocity)
may be expressed in terms of the vector potential and therefore satisfies Eq. (C.2) (Lighthill uses the
continuity equation in his derivation). The fact that the defect velocity may be expressed in terms of
the vector potential is true for compressible unsteady flows as well (see, e. g., Morino 1985 ; this point
is discussed in detail in Part II of this work). Therefore, the above expression for the transpiration
velocity is valid even for compressible unsteady flows. [In order to emphasize the use of Eq. C.2 as the
key to the above formulation (and to distinguish the decomposition used in the infinite-space
approach employed in the main body of this paper from that used in this Appendix), this method is
referred to as the 'defect-velocity approach.']
The above result is in contrast to the classical expression for the transpiration velocity (see, e.g.,
Lemmerman and Sonnad 1979), which contains the density, e, in front ofv and ~e in front of re, and is
obtained by using the continuity equation for steady compressible flows. This expression is (1)
approximate, and (2) valid only for steady flows (and not easily extendable to unsteady compressible
flows). The advantages of Eq. (C.6) are its generality and its simplicity.
Next, the transpiration-velocity formulation is extended to the case in which the vortical region is
not limited to a small region around the boundary. In this case, the formulation presented above is still
valid, but the numerical implementation is not necessarily efficient, since Eq. (C.6) requires
integration over at least the whole vortical region. Also, the harmonic continuation of ~b' into ~bmay
yield a discontinuous value for 4, akin to the analytic continuation in function of a complex variable;
this is true even for a simply connected domain, as is easily seen in the case of a wing with a thin wake
(where, in the limit, one obtains the potential flow discussed in Section 2 which has a discontinuity in
across the wake). Therefore, for the case in which the vorticity is not limited to a small region around
the body, it is convenient to use a different decomposition. Then let Ve indicate the velocity in the
external volume Ve (which is now defined as the volume outside the internal region V~, a small region
around % that may be arbitrarily defined, e.g., the boundary layer region for attached flows or the
viscous sublayer for turbulent flows). The external velocity is given by
13e = V ¢ -~- IJv (C.7)
where

vv(x)--Vxx//~ 4~[ta}Y?y
l _ dV(y) (C.8)
v~
is the velocity "induced" only by the vorticity in V~, and ~b is harmonic with suitable boundary
conditions. This expression does not include the contribution of the vorticity inside the boundary
layer, and therefore, its use in the internal region V~(e. g., in the boundary layer region) yields the
desired harmonic continuation. Except for this generalization of the definition of the external
velocity, the analysis presented above is still valid, and the boundary condition for q~ becomes
(Eq. C.5)

a n = V b " n - - v v " v + vtr (C.9)

with v~ given by Eq. (C.8) and vtr given by Eq. (C.6). Extension of this formulation to compressible
flows is similar to that discussed above, and is given in detail in Part 2 of this work.

Communicated by S.N. Atluri, December 31, 1985