
[Sponsors] 
October 30, 2008, 06:05 
Higher order terms in the equations

#1 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Hello,
Why do we ignore the second order terms when we derive the continuity, momentum etc. equations? More specifically, if we use Taylor series to derive the substantial derivative, then we omit the higher order terms. I'm sure I'm missing something but it seems odd to have the equations based on an assumption that first order accuracy is ok and then use second or higher order discretization schemes. Please enlighten me. 

October 30, 2008, 07:36 
Re: Higher order terms in the equations

#2 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Why should we use taylor series to obtain the substantial derivative? In my knowledge the substatial derivative is in closed form and simply comes out from the composite function derivation rule :
Df(x,t)/Dt = df/dt + df/dx*dx/dt because f is a function of t and of x(x0,t) where x0 is the position that was occupied at the time t=t0 by the particle that is in x at time t. 

October 30, 2008, 08:19 
Re: Higher order terms in the equations

#3 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Well there are different ways in obtaining the substantial derivative. One way is by simply solving the total derivative.
It is fully possible to use a Taylor series approach where, say rho is developed. rho = rho(x,y,z,t) then assume we have a small fluid element at two different times (t1 and t2). We will have two different densities, rho1 and rho2. From a Taylor series expansion we could then obtain: rho2 = rho1 + (d(rho)/dx)*(x2x1) + (d(rho)/dy)*(y2y1) + (d(rho)/dz)*(z2z1) + (d(rho)/dt)*(t2t1) + HOT where HOT is higher order terms. Rearranging and dividing by (t2t1) we will get (rho2rho1)/(t2t1) = ...... Taking the limit as t2>t1 we define this as the substantial derivative D(rho)/Dt. So I'm confused about the neglecting of the HOT. 

October 30, 2008, 12:03 
Re: Higher order terms in the equations

#4 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Ok, this is another way to obtain it but this is not neglecting, in the limit of t2>t1 they all go exactly to zero because HOT means they're at least of order dt^2 (but in some cases the next term in time has a bigger order) and so, dividing by dt, they becomes of order dt and go exactly to zero for dt going to zero. It's a derivative.


October 30, 2008, 12:31 
Re: Higher order terms in the equations

#5 
Guest
Posts: n/a

First some clarification (I was too sloppy to write it the first time, but I assume this is clear).
(rho2rho1)/(t2t1) =(d(rho)/dx)*(x2x1)/(t2t1) + (d(rho)/dy)*(y2y1)/(t2t1) + (d(rho)/dz)*(z2z1)/(t2t1) + (d(rho)/dt)*(t2t1)/(t2t1) + HOT/(t2t1) Or as t2>t1 (x2x1)/(t2t1) = u (y2y1)/(t2t1) = v (z2z1)/(t2t1) = w Since the distance traveled by the volume element approaches zero as t2>t1 If we look at one of the expanded terms of the HOT (there are 10 extra terms): d^2(rho)/d(xt)*(x2x1)*(t2t1) I don't see how this vanishes as we divide by dt (t2t1). Could you please tell me what I'm doing wrong. 

October 30, 2008, 16:46 
Re: Higher order terms in the equations

#6 
Guest
Posts: n/a

I think it vanishes because in the limit (t2t1) > 0:
(x2x1) * (t2t1) / (t2t1) > u * (t2t1) > 0 or, simply x2 = x(t2) and x1 = x(t1) so every terms in (x2x1) vanishes for t2 > t1 

October 31, 2008, 04:47 
Re: Higher order terms in the equations

#7 
Guest
Posts: n/a

Thank you for a nice discussion.
It is more clear now. 

October 31, 2008, 08:41 
Re: Higher order terms in the equations

#8 
Guest
Posts: n/a

You're welcome. Thank you too.


Thread Tools  
Display Modes  


Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Calculation of the Governing Equations  Mihail  CFX  7  September 7, 2014 06:27 
modify fvMatrix / coupled equations / higher order diffusion  Jinming  OpenFOAM Programming & Development  0  May 7, 2011 06:20 
Source terms in equations  klilla  OpenFOAM  4  November 26, 2009 06:56 
Higher order Gradient Calculation  CFDtoy  Main CFD Forum  3  February 13, 2009 05:42 
Volume 10 has higher order elements  Duncan  FLUENT  0  November 2, 2005 14:52 