A Shallow water equations evaluation

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter maistral
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Water
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around confusion regarding the momentum equation in shallow water equations (SWEs). The user is attempting to apply product rules to derive equations but encounters difficulties, particularly with the second line of their calculations. They reference a paper that presents a similar issue but struggle to understand the transition between specific equations in that paper. The user questions how expanding terms can lead to a non-conservative set of equations, emphasizing that mechanical manipulation should not alter the foundational assumptions of the equations. Clarification on these points is sought to resolve the confusion.
maistral
Messages
235
Reaction score
17
Summary:: A little confusion on the momentum equation (I think).

According to Wikipedia (I know, I just need basic resources for now), the conservative SWEs are
:
9b9d481407c0c835525291740de8d1c446265ce2


If I use product rules, I am supposed to get:

6bb10fdfb320a6bc0f4011b08b6b616b2a95929e


For context, note that ρ is a constant and can be taken out (thus canceled out), and η(x,y) = H + h(x,y) (H is a constant).

I have no issues getting the first line. The second line however, I am facing issues. This is what I have:

1638011369713.png


I intentionally did not distribute the derivatives with respect to y so I could see the problem more clearer. Am I missing something here with regards to the expansion of the PDE? Thanks in advance.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Just an update:

I found this paper that actually is the same 'issue' that I am facing, though they just presented it.

This paper:
https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0039545

It stated that:

1638033387994.png


I am having trouble understanding how the second equations have been made (second equation 4, to second equation 5).
 
The wikipedia entry on shallow water equations doesn't make sense to me. How could you, from equations derived using momentum and mass conservation, merely expand terms and get a non-conservative set of equations. No mechanical manipulation of equations changes the underlying assumptions they were derived from.
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
131
Views
7K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Back
Top