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.
 
Consider an extremely long and perfectly calibrated scale. A car with a mass of 1000 kg is placed on it, and the scale registers this weight accurately. Now, suppose the car begins to move, reaching very high speeds. Neglecting air resistance and rolling friction, if the car attains, for example, a velocity of 500 km/h, will the scale still indicate a weight corresponding to 1000 kg, or will the measured value decrease as a result of the motion? In a second scenario, imagine a person with a...
Dear all, in an encounter of an infamous claim by Gerlich and Tscheuschner that the Greenhouse effect is inconsistent with the 2nd law of thermodynamics I came to a simple thought experiment which I wanted to share with you to check my understanding and brush up my knowledge. The thought experiment I tried to calculate through is as follows. I have a sphere (1) with radius ##r##, acting like a black body at a temperature of exactly ##T_1 = 500 K##. With Stefan-Boltzmann you can calculate...
Thread 'Griffith, Electrodynamics, 4th Edition, Example 4.8. (First part)'
I am reading the Griffith, Electrodynamics book, 4th edition, Example 4.8 and stuck at some statements. It's little bit confused. > Example 4.8. Suppose the entire region below the plane ##z=0## in Fig. 4.28 is filled with uniform linear dielectric material of susceptibility ##\chi_e##. Calculate the force on a point charge ##q## situated a distance ##d## above the origin. Solution : The surface bound charge on the ##xy## plane is of opposite sign to ##q##, so the force will be...

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