Fluid mechanics - Linearized shallow water equations

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on solving the linearized shallow water equations in a one-dimensional setup, specifically addressing the relationship between disturbances in velocity (u') and height (h'). The user seeks clarification on how to combine the momentum and mass continuity equations to derive a wave equation, as referenced in the text. They express difficulty in eliminating the term involving u' from the resulting equation. Ultimately, the user finds the solution and shares their intermediate steps, indicating that the discussion led to a successful resolution of the problem.
kmot
Messages
7
Reaction score
1
Hi,

In a text describing solution to linearized shallow water equations, I am not able to move forward.

It's a 1 dimensional shallow water setup. There is a steady state
1608989852741.png
(velocity) and
1608989862952.png
(height of free surface). On top of this steady state there are u' and h' as disturbances. The goal is to solve for h'(x,t)

1608989771671.png


The governing equations are:
(1)
1608989324189.png
(momentum)
(2)
1608989337300.png
(mass continuity)

Subscripts denote partial derivatives.

The text says these two can be combined to arrive at wave equation, without providing further details of how:
(3)
1608989399570.png


But with anything I tried I wasn't able to eliminate u' completely. I'm always left with a term including u' in (3). Perhaps the term that can't be eliminated can be neglected, but I don't see why.

Would somebody be willing to provide a step by step guide how to go from (1) & (2) to (3), including reasoning of why something can be neglected (if neglecting is needed)?

Thank you very much
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I found the solution. Here are the intermediate steps
1609003715700.png
 
  • Like
Likes boneh3ad
kmot said:
I found the solution. Here are the intermediate steps
View attachment 275166 8 ball pool
Okay, that makes sense. Thanks for the answers.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
This has been discussed many times on PF, and will likely come up again, so the video might come handy. Previous threads: https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/is-a-treadmill-incline-just-a-marketing-gimmick.937725/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/work-done-running-on-an-inclined-treadmill.927825/ https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/how-do-we-calculate-the-energy-we-used-to-do-something.1052162/
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...

Similar threads

Back
Top