Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

Classic Bernoulli’s principle derivation and its working hypotheses

This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text.

2016 Phys. Educ. 51 045005

(http://iopscience.iop.org/0031-9120/51/4/045005)

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:

IP Address: 144.122.201.150
This content was downloaded on 11/05/2016 at 04:59

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

 Papers
Phys. Educ. 51 (2016) 045005 (6pp) iopscience.org/ped

Classic Bernoulli’s principle

derivation and its working
hypotheses
Edson R Marciotto
Department of Physics, Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, 88040900,
­Campus ­Trindade, Florianópolis, Brazil

E-mail: e.r.marciotto@gmail.com

Abstract
The Bernoulli’s principle states that the quantity p + ρgz + ρv /2 must be
2

conserved in a streamtube if some conditions are matched, namely: steady

and irrotational flow of an inviscid and incompressible fluid. In most physics
textbooks this result is demonstrated invoking the energy conservation of a
fluid material volume at two different positions of a pipe whose cross-section
and height vary along its way. Although the final result is correct the right
justifications presented in textbooks are usually unclear or absent. The main
problem rests on the work done by pressure, which are not found to be fully
justified via free-body diagrams as depicted in many general physics textbooks,
not to mention plenty of videos on YouTube that incur in similar omissions.
In this article I will discuss this issue and how it is solved without resorting to
alternative demonstrations. In addition, I discuss the needs of the assumptions
to get the Bernoulli’s principle in a way viable to introductory physics courses.

1. Introduction would be accounted for in terms of Newtonian

It is not from recent times that the famous
Bernoulli’s principle is an object of confu­
sion [1, 7]. For example, a fallacious argument
about its application to wing lift was clarified
by Babinsky (2003) [2]. The concept of pres­
sure energy seems to be the most confused in
old physics textbooks until its overall refuta­
tion [5, 12], and the principle derivation itself
has also been an object of debate [10]. However,
herein I will bring some unclear statements on
the Bernoulli’ principle still present in modern
general physics textbooks.
Most of them present the classic derivation of
Bernoulli’s equation by computing the work done
by pressure forces implying a variation of the
kinetic and the potential energy. This approach
mechanics as
Wpressure = ∆K + ∆U,
(1)
where Wpressure is the work done by pressure on a
fluid particle, and ∆K and ∆U are the kinetic and
potential energy variation, respectively.
The derivation usually found in general phys­
ics textbooks [3, 8, 11]1 utilize the layout pre­
sented in figure 1, that I will call pipe-approach.
Such a sketch is so popular in the physics and
engineering communities that it turns out to be the
icon for the fluid mechanics subject in Wikipedia
[13], from which figure 1 is a redraw.
1
Including their new editions by other authors.

0031-9120/16/045005+6$33.00 1 © 2016 IOP Publishing Ltd

E R Marciotto
The stated assumptions in Bernoulli’s princi­
ple are (i) the fluid is assumed to be inviscid and
incompressible, and (ii) the flow is assumed to
be stationary (steady) and irrotational. Then, the
argumentation development follows like this;
From equation (1), the variation of mechani­
cal energy K  +  U  =  mv2/2  +  mgz is caused by
unbalanced forces on the fluid particle due to the
pressure on each surface A and B, which are writ­
ten as pA AA and −pB AB. By applying the mechani­
cal energy conservation and incompressibility,
and doing the algebra, one gets the Bernoulli’s
equation.
Specialised textbooks on fluid mechanics do
derive the Bernoulli’s principle from the Euler
equation (see the appendix for such a derivation).
The criticism addressed in this paper is only to
general physics textbooks, usually employed in
the beginning of college studies.
2.  Main issues found
Many doubts arise from the argumentation in the
last section. The most problematic issue is cer­
tainly the pressure term derivation. In general,
though the final result is alright, the correct physi­
cal justifications are unclear, absent, and some­
times even incorrect.
2.1.  The pipe-approach derivation
The shadowed areas in figure 1 refer to the very
same material volume2, which has been displaced
from one position to another. Thus, the variation
of potential energy is −mg(zB − z A) and the varia­
tion of kinetic energy is mv2B/2 − mv2A/2. However,
assuming that the material volume was displaced
between those positions, the force on each surface
of the material volume would have continuously
changed as the material volume was displaced.
Therefore, we cannot apply the tacit hypothesis
of constant force; the force is constant only inside
the constant-radius pipe region.
Perhaps the material volume was the volume
within the portion from the rear at A to the rear at B.
If that were the case, then the work done by gravity
2
A material volume is an amount of fluid that conserves it
mass throughout the flow. If the fluid is incompressible then
its volume remains constant, although it can change in shape.
This corresponds to the so-called Lagrangian description of
a flow.
July 2016
Figure 1.  Layout of the pipe-approach to demonstrate
the Bernoulli’s principle.
could not be −mg(zB − z A) because the ­material
volume would have been displaced just sA (or sB)
and the height variation of the center of mass
would be actually much less than zB − z A.
We still could imagine that there are two
material volumes. One at A displaces sA and the
other at B displaces sB. Nonetheless, a major
problem arises here as well. If one is studying
a particle motion via Newton’s law, the forces
must be applied to the very same particle, or
in our pipe-approach, to the same material vol­
ume. Therefore, it is not possible to talk about
force balance in this case because pA AA and pB AB
would be applied on distinguished bodies! It can
be argued that what happens between the front
portion of region A and the rear portion of region
B is unimportant, since the flow is assumed to
be stationary [6]. In spite of this being true, as
will be shown next section, there is no revealing
explanation on how stationary hypothesis works
out the problem.
2.2.  The lack of discussion of the working
hypothesis
The assumptions needed to derive the Bernoulli’s
principle are poorly explored in general phys­
ics textbooks. Students may have a feel that all
assumptions, but energy conservation, are good
for nothing. The points of criticisms are:
(i) it is neither clear what the needed hypotheses
to get the result are nor how they imply the
final result; compressibility and irrotation­
allity is the most unclear hypothesis, and
stationarity is poorly discussed [6];
(ii) there is no clear definition of what the
material volume (or fluid particle) which
2 P h y s i c s E d u c at i o n
 Classic Bernoulli’s principle derivation and its working hypotheses
the forces are applied on is. In fact, some
traditional textbooks imply that there are two
material volumes, one at position A and other
at B. It is not clearly stated that the material
volume flows from A to B, especially when
the pressure term is evaluated. In this case, it
is implied as the opposite; that the whole fluid
from A to B is a single material volume on
which the pressure forces are applied;
(iii) the clarification of how a stationary flow
can have different speeds at different
points is often omitted. This is an issue in
some textbooks that define stationarity in
a misleading way. In fact, we can find the
association of stationary flow with smooth
flow, which is not correct [9]. One can
actually have a non-stationary smooth flow.
For instance, one can figure out water in a
small diameter pipe being pulled by gravity
from v0  =  0 to some low speed, say, 0.1
m s−1. In this range no turbulence would
likely be developed, thereby the flow would
remain smooth even though non-stationary.
In another textbook [8], it is stated that a
stationary flow is that in which the global
configuration does not change with time. In
both cases the definitions are not helpful as
working hypotheses;
(iv) the final result obtained from the pipe-
approach is stated to be held just for a
streamline, unless the flow be irrotational.
Nonetheless, the discussion commonly
found (if any) provides no clue for that
understanding.
3.  Revisiting Bernoulli’s principle
3.1.  Pipe-approach derivation
The inconsistencies of the pipe-approach demon­
stration vanishes considering that there is just one
material volume and that it is displaced from A to
B. Among the three situations discussed before,
this is the only one that provides the variation of
kinetic and potential energy, m /2(v2B − v2A) and
−mg(zB − z A), respectively, as required in the
pipe-approach demonstration of Bernoulli’s prin­
ciple. Hence, the variation of mechanical energy
of the fluid particle does not seems to be the issue
at all. Yet in this case, the work done by pressure
July 2016
Figure 2.  Free-body diagram for pressure forces: (a)
the very same material volume at two consecutive time-
steps, k and k  +  1, (b) unbalanced forces on the time
step k, and (c) unbalanced forces on time-step k  +  1. By
invoking the stationary hypothesis we can assume that
for any time-step there is a fluid particle similar to the
studied material volume before and ahead of it. As the
material volume moves the pipe changes its gauge, so
that the area of the interface between two consecutive
material volumes is not exactly the same, as well as its
thickness in that discretised approximation. When the
number of time-steps goes to infinity, the areas Ak+1
and Ak+2 go to the same value, as do the thicknesses
δsk and δsk + 1.
force to take the material volume from A to B
must be pA AA − pB AB. Thus, the problem is how
to get that pressure work for a material volume
that changes its cross-section area continuously
from A to B, implying a variable force.
In order to solve this difficulty we will con­
sider a material volume of mass m and a finite
volume VA initially at position A being displaced
to the final position B, where it gets a finite vol­
ume VB. The incompressibility hypothesis allows
us to write VA = VB. The free-body diagram is as
sketched in figure 2. Let us assume that the mat­
erial volume is displaced from its initial position
only by a small distance δs1. The force on the
material volume on the rear-surface is pA AA and
on the front-surface is −p1 A1, with a minus sig­
nal meaning F1 is against the displacement. The
work done over the material volume due to this
small displacement is δW1 = ( pA AA − p1 A1)δs1.
At that new position, the forces on the material
volume are p1 A1 on the rear-surface and −p2 A2 on
the front-surface, which causes the displacement
δs2, doing a small work δW2 = ( p1 A1 − p2 A2 )δs2.
As a consequence of incompressibility, this would
imply that the displacement steps δsk are varying
along the pipe. Based on this construction, we can
split the total work for displacing the elementary
volume from A to B into the contribution of many
elementary works:
3 P h y s i c s E d u c at i o n
E R Marciotto
δW1 = ( pA AA − p1 A1)δs1
δWk = ( pk Ak − pk + 1 Ak + 1)δsk

 
δWN = ( pN AN − pB AB )δsN (2)
Without loss of generality que can assume
δsk = δsk + 1 = δs. Therefore, the total work to
take an elementary material volume from A to B
is given by its piecewise sum:
δWtotal = δW1 + δW2 +  + δWN − 1 + δWN
= ( pA AA − p1A1)δs + ( p1A1 − p2 A2 )δs +  would loose mechanical energy along the way from
  + ( pN − 1AN − 1 − pN AN )δs + ( pN AN − pB AB )δs
≈ pA AA δs − pB AB δs
= pA δVA − pB δVB. (3)
Wherever the pipe has a constant area we can
replace δVA and δVB for a finite volume VA and VB,
respectively:
Wtotal = pA VA − pB VB.
(4)
This result shows that the work done by pressure
to displace a fluid particle of mass m from posi­
tion A to B is equivalent to the difference of pres­
sure times volume of the fluid particle at those
points. The procedure shown above is usually the
missing point when demonstrating Bernoulli’s
principle using this approach.
Note that the force on the surface ahead of
the rear particle (or material volume) has the
same magnitude and opposite sense of the force
on the rear surface of the particle ahead (figure 2).
In other words, these forces are action–reaction
pairs. It is important to warn the student that in
equation (3) one is not cancelling action–reaction
pairs. What is actually done is to sum elementary
works and just using the fact that forces at a same
material volume interface are equal and oppo­
site (action–reaction pairs) to simplify the result.
It also should be clear that each elementary work
occurs at different time-steps (and consequently
different positions) for a given material volume,
which is always finite in volume. What becomes
infinitesimal is the volume swapped by the area
by the displacement from step k to k  +  1.
3.2.  Comments on the working hypotheses
A flow is stationary if its vector velocity does not
change with time at a given point. Using a more
July 2016
common language of Fluid Mechanics, a flow is
stationary if the local vector acceleration is zero
at a given point. This is why it is possible for a
fluid particle to change its velocity from one point
to another with the flow still being stationary.
If we measure the velocity at points A and B, they
would be different but constant at each point (see
appendix B for details). Now, for a non-stationary
flow, the mechanical energy varies with time and
the energy conservation theorem (equation (1)
cannot be applied. In addition, the fluid obviously
should be inviscid, otherwise the fluid particle
A to B due to the friction, in the very same way the
mechanical energy of a brick is not conserved when
it is displaced on a rough inclined plane.
In the pipe-approach derivation found in text­
books one needs the incompressibility assump­
tion to write VA = VB so that the volume cancels
out and one obtains the Bernoulli’s equation
in the form pA + ρ v2A/2 + ρgz A = pB + ρ v2B/2 + ρgzB.
Nonetheless, the form pA VA + ρAVAv2A/2 + ρAVAgz A =
pB VB + ρBVB v2B/2 + ρBVBgzB is also a statement of
energy conservation. Therefore, incompressibil­
ity is not a necessary condition. That is why we
can apply Bernoulli’s principles to gases, which
are relatively compressible. However, the density
of a gas should change only according to the local
pressure changes. A flow for which ρ = ρ( p)
is called barotropic. To clarify this point let us
consider the ideal gas state equation in the form
p = ρR∗T , where R* is a constant for a part­icular
gas3. If the fluid density changes as a function of
the pressure only, there will be no variation in
the internal energy of the fluid from point A to B
(T = constant).
Finally, the irrotationality is needed because it
guarantees that a velocity profile of a one-dimen­
sional flow is planar and thus the flow speed is the
same on a given cross-section. In order to better
understand this statement, let us first see how to
describe an irrotational flow without resorting to
partial derivatives. A flow is irrotational at a given
point (the choice of the point is important) if there
is no net circulation of fluid at that point. This may
be checked by placing at that point a small dented
wheel, which will not turn around. We can speak of
3
R*  =  R/M (M is the molecular mass) is not a universal con­
stant. Instead it depends on the gas or gases in consideration.
For dry air its value is approximately 287 J kg−1 K−1.
4 P h y s i c s E d u c at i o n
 Classic Bernoulli’s principle derivation and its working hypotheses

∂v 1
+ v ⋅ ∇ v = − ∇p + f.
(A.1)
∂t ρ
If f is a conservative force (per unit volume), we
have f = −∇Φ and then equation  (A.1) can be
written as

∂v 1
+ v ⋅ ∇v = − ∇p − ∇Φ.
(A.2)
∂t ρ
Figure 3. One-dimensional flow profile in a wind 1
tunnel. Although the flow takes place along straight lines Now, using the vector identity v ⋅ ∇v = 2 ∇v 2 −
there is indeed a net circulation. If a dented wheel were v × ∇ × v, we obtain
placed in such a flow it would turn around clockwise. At
(A) the spinning would be faster than at (B). ∂v ⎛1 dp ⎞
+ ∇ ⎜ v2 + Φ + ⎟ = v × ∇ × v.
∫
circulation even in a unidirectional flow. Consider ∂t ⎝2 ρ ⎠

for example, a typical flow profile in a wind tunnel B :Bernoulli function
 (A.3)
as shown in figure 3. Although the flow occurs at
only one direction, there is a net circulation in the As mentioned before, a barotropic fluid is
sense that if we place a dented wheel, it would turn that in which the density is a function of pressure
around with a speed depending on the position in only, that is, ρ = ρ( p). A useful mathematical
the vertical direction. In a unidirectional flow the 1
property of barotropic fluid is that ρ ∇p = ∇ ∫ ρ
dp
rotationality can be reduced to the presence of a
always holds. In order to show this, we will define
velocity gradient, or more simply to a vertical var­
the function dF = (1/ρ )dp. Then
iation in this case. As a consequence, a rotational
and one-dimensional flow has it speed changing dp
according to its vertical position. In this condi­ F=
(A.4)
ρ
. ∫
tion the Bernoulli’s principle cannot obviously
be held for the whole cross-section pipe. Instead, On the other hand,
any streamline has its own Bernoulli’s constant.
Furthermore, an irrotational one-dimensional flow 1 1
∇F ⋅ dr = dF = dp = ∇p ⋅ dr,
(A.5)
is necessarily planar4. ρ ρ
or
Appendix A.  Bernoulli’s principle
1
formally derived ∇F = ∇p,
(A.6)
ρ
In more advanced textbooks on fluid mechanics
the Bernoulli’s principle is usually derived from from which we find the required relation by plac­
the Euler equation, which already assumes a zero- ing equation (A.4) into equation (A.6).
viscosity fluid, but not incompressibility. Here I For a stationary flow we have ∇B = v × ∇ × v.
will provide a formal derivation of the Bernoulli’s From this we can conclude that v × ∇ × v is nor­
principle following the approach by Kundu and mal to the level surfaces of B, so that they contain
Cohen [4] with the aim of helping instructors to both streamlines and vorticity lines, hence
see how the working hypotheses appear to sim­
plify the equations. 1 2
v +Φ+ ∫ dρp = constant,  along any 
The momentum per unit mass of an invis­ 2
cid fluid moving under the action of the pressure given streamline. (A.7)
gradient and a body force (e.g. gravity) can be
described by: B is also constant along any vorticity line. If
4
besides stationary, the flow is also irrotational,
In effect, ∇ × v = 0 is equivalent to ∂vz /∂x − ∂vx /∂z = 0 in
a two-dimensional flow. If the flow is one-dimensional, say then ∇ × v = 0 and B is constant everywhere in
vz  =  0, then vx(z)  =  constant (flat profile). the flow.

July 2016 5 P h y s i c s E d u c at i o n
E R Marciotto
Appendix B.  Changing the fluid particle
velocity in a stationary flow
Saying that the velocity of a fluid particle (= mat­
erial volume) can change in a stationary flow can
seem confusing to the student. In this appendix
some simple examples are provided of how this
is possible in an accessible way to a student at the
beginning of a physics course. We just need the
precise definition of stationary flow (beginning
of section 3.2) and mass conservation law for an
incompressible fluid, i.e. A1u1 = A2 u2.
Let us assume a fluid particle is flowing
in a wind tunnel with a conic contraction (say,
A2 < A1). Let us set the fan rotation rate constant
such that the flow can be assumed stationary
(= constant velocity at a given point). As the fluid
particle passes by the contraction it is accelerated
because more fluid has to pass by per unit area.
This is called advective acceleration and is related
to the surrounds of the flow. Thus, the fluid par­
ticle velocity at a position, say r = r2, is greater
than at position r = r1. However, every particle
passing by r1 has the same vector velocity as any
other particle at that position would have, and
analogously for the position r2. Whether we can
precisely control the fan rotation rate, we could
do something more interesting, such as decrease
the fan rotation rate in such a way that the local
negative acceleration (the flow slowing down
locally) would be exactly compensated by the
advective acceleration due to the contraction. The
result would be a fluid particle travelling through
the contraction with constant vector velocity even
though the overall flow outside the contraction is
non-stationary (decreasing velocity).
Received 3 November 2015
Accepted for publication 24 March 2016
doi:10.1088/0031-9120/51/4/045005
July 2016
References
[1] Awaiti K M 1997 Answer to question #44.
Bernoulli’s principle Am. J. Phys. 65 271
[2] Babinsky H 2003 How do wings work? Phys.
Educ. 38 497–503
[3] Halliday D, Resnick R and Walker J 2009
Fundamentos de Física: Gravitaç, Ondas
e Termodinâmica vol 2, 9th edn (Rio de
Janeiro: Editora LTC)
[4] Kundu P K and Cohen I M 2002 Fluid
Mechanics (New York: Academic)
pp 110–1
[5] Lindsay G A 1952 Pressure energy and
Bernoulli’s principle Am. J. Phys. 20 86
[6] Nussenzveig H M 1987 Curso de Física Básica
vol 2 (São Paulo: Edgar Blücher)
[7] Ohanian H C 1996 Question #44. Bernoulli
principle Am. J. Phys. 64 681
[8] Sears F W, Zemansky M W, Young H D and
Freedman R A 2008 Física vol 2, 12nd edn
(São Paulo: Pearson)
[9] Serway R and Jewett J W 2004 Physics for
Scientists and Engineers 6th edn (Belmont,
CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole)
[10] Sleator W W 1949 Check and proofs of the
Bernoulli equation Am. J. Phys. 17 110
[11] Tipler P A and Mosca G 2009 Física Para
Cientistas e Engenheiros vol 2, 6th edn
[12] Van Lear G A Jr 1934 Pressure energy—a
misconception Am. J. Phys. 2 99
[13] Fluid mechanics Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.
org/wiki/Fluid_mechanics) (accessed 2 May
2016)
Edson R Marciotto received his PhD
in meteorology at Universidade de
São Paulo. He is assistant professor
at Universidade Federal de Santa
Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil, where
he teaches physics, micrometeorology
and meteorological instrumentation.
6 P h y s i c s E d u c at i o n