Why Use Time Derivative Outside the Integral in the Continuity Equation?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of the continuity equation in fluid dynamics, specifically addressing the placement of the time derivative in relation to the integral of density over a volume. Participants explore the implications of writing the time derivative outside versus inside the integral, considering both mathematical and intuitive perspectives.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the reasoning behind using the time derivative outside the integral in the continuity equation, suggesting that it implies a summation of mass followed by a time change.
  • Another participant asserts that if the volume is fixed, both forms of the integral are equivalent, referencing common derivations of the continuity equation.
  • A participant expresses uncertainty about the meaning of the second integral and its technical correctness, noting the need for Leibniz' rule when dealing with time-dependent boundaries.
  • Further clarification is provided that the first integral accounts for changes in mass due to both density and volume variations, while the second integral only considers density changes, potentially neglecting contributions from volume changes.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants exhibit some agreement on the equivalence of the two integrals under fixed volume conditions, but there is disagreement regarding the implications and correctness of the second integral when volume changes are considered. The discussion remains unresolved on the broader implications of these formulations.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the interpretation of the integrals may depend on whether the volume is fixed or time-dependent, highlighting the importance of boundary conditions in the application of the continuity equation.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students and professionals in fluid dynamics, physics, and engineering who are exploring the mathematical formulations of conservation laws and their implications in dynamic systems.

member 428835
Hi PF!

Can someone help me understand why, when writing the continuity equation we write: $$\frac{\partial}{\partial t} \iiint_v \rho \, dv$$ instead of $$ \iiint_v \frac{\partial}{\partial t} \rho \, dv$$

I understand the two are not necessarily the same, but why derive it the first way rather than the second?

Intuitively, the first seems to be saying "add up all the mass and then see how it changes in time" where as the second seems to say "see how density changes in time at each location and then add it all up".

I'm just having trouble understanding the second integral.

Thanks!

Josh
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you keep your volume fixed, the two are equivalent. This is usually how you will see the continuity equation on differential form derived.
 
Yea, The same with energy and fluid balances. But I don't know what the second integral means, or rather why it's technically incorrect, from an intuitive perspective (mathematically I realize you need to use Leibniz' rule if the boundaries are time-dependent and you want to interchange the derivative and integral)

Any help on this is greatly appreciated.
 
Well, "technically correct" depends on what you actually want to compute. Assuming that the volume is time dependent (since in the case where it is not the integrals are equivalent). The first integral gives you the change in the mass within a the volume by computing the mass as a function of time and then differentiating it. The second one only gives you the change of mass in the volume due to changes in the density and therefore neglects any contribution coming from the volume growing or shrinking (or moving!). As an example, consider a medium of constant density ##\rho##. The mass within the volume ##V(t)## will be given by ##M(t) = \rho V(t)## and so ##\dot M = \rho \dot V##. If you compute the density derivative ##\dot \rho##, you will get zero because you are neglecting the fact that the volume might change and therefore engulf more or less mass.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K