Sie sind auf Seite 1von 3

# multivariable calculus - Trouble with the derivation of the Reynolds Transport Theorem - Mathematics Stack Exchange 1/1/18, 9'59 PM

_
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a Here's how it works:
question and answer site for people
studying math at any level and
professionals in related fields. Join
them; it only takes a minute:

## Trouble with the derivation of the Reynolds Transport Theorem

I have been trying to reconcile two different forms of the Reynolds Transport Theorem (RTT) that I have seen in textbooks.

The first form comes from a finite volume method cfd textbook. It directly relates the rate of change of a property within a material volume
(MV) to some integrals of an associated control volume (CV). I did not understand how they arrived at this form and was trying to derive it
myself from the more well know form of RTT (described in paragraph below).

The second RTT form I think is much more common, particularly from a math perspective.

d ∂F
dt ∫V(t) ∫V(t) ∂t ∫A(t)
1) F dV = dV + Fb ⋅ n dV

where V is an arbitrary volume bounded by surface A. F is the (scalar in this case) field of interest, b is the velocity of the surface A and n is the
normal vector for the surface A. All of these quantities are in general variable, both spatially and temporally.

My understanding is that this second form of the RTT (eqn 2) can be applied to both a material volume (MV) as well as any arbitrary control
volume (CV) (this is done in some derivations of the continuity equation I have been looking at.

## So now we have both

d ∂F
dt ∫MV(t) ∫MV(t) ∂t ∫AMV (t)
2) F dV = dV + Fu ⋅ n dV

(In the case of the material volume analysis the velocity of the surface A (i.e. b) is equal to the fluid velocity u)

And

d ∂F
dt ∫CV(t) ∫CV(t) ∂t ∫ACV (t)
3) F dV = dV + Fb ⋅ n dV

Now borrowing again from the derivation of the continuity equation and assuming that the two volumes CV and MV are instantaneously
coincident we can draw some conclusions. Obviously the first terms of eqns 2 and 3 are not, in general, equal even with CV and MV
coincident.

However if MV is the same as CV even temporarily then the second terms from each equation should be equal

∂F ∂F
∫MV(t) ∂t ∫CV(t) ∂t
4) dV = dV

Additionally the third term of equation 2 can be rewritten in terms of an integral over CV rather than MV.

## ∫AMV (t) ∫ACV (t)

5) Fu ⋅ n dV = Fu ⋅ n dV

In an effort to derive the first form of the RTT described earlier I substituted eqns. 4 and 5 into 2 to arrive at

d ∂F
dt ∫MV(t) ∫CV(t) ∂t ∫ACV (t)
6) F dV = dV + Fu ⋅ n dV

So now we have the rate of change of the field inside the material volume described by integrals over the control volume but I feel like it is
absolute non-sense for several reasons. The most evident reason being that there is now no reliance at all on b which was never assumed to be
zero and should therefore play a role I think in this final equation.

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1918699/trouble-with-the-derivation-of-the-reynolds-transport-theorem Page 1 of 3
multivariable calculus - Trouble with the derivation of the Reynolds Transport Theorem - Mathematics Stack Exchange 1/1/18, 9'59 PM

So my question FINALLY is what did I do wrong here? Equating the integrals (MV and CV) when the volumes coincide is right out of the
textbook derivation of the continuity equation so I feel okay about that.

(multivariable-calculus) (fluid-dynamics)

## asked Sep 8 '16 at 1:04

c6754
8 5

The apparent paradox is resolved once you realize that 𝕦 and 𝕓 are not necessarily the same vector
fields when CV(t) is an arbitrary moving control volume and MV(t) is a material control volume --
even if they coincide at some instant of time.

Consider how the surface velocity arises in the derivation of the Reynolds Transport Theorem. An
arbitrary moving control volume V(t) ⊂ ℝ3 is the image of a fixed region under some family of
smooth maps

ξ(⋅, t) : ℝ3 → ℝ3

## ξ(⋅, t) : V(0) ↦ V(t).

If F is an integrable scalar field, then with a change of integration variable 𝕩 = ξ(𝕩0 , t), we have

∣ ∂𝕩 ∣
∫V(t) ∫V(0)
F(𝕩, t) d𝕩 = F(ξ(𝕩0 , t), t) ∣ ∣ d𝕩0 ,
∣ ∂𝕩0 ∣

## where the Jacobian determinant ∣∣ ∂𝕩

∂𝕩 ∣
∣ is positive for sufficiently small t if the map ξ is continuous.
0
Taking the derivative with respect to t , we can interchange the derivative and integral on the RHS over
the fixed region V(0), to obtain

∫V(0) ∂t { ∣ ∂𝕩0 ∣}
d ∂ ∣ ∂𝕩 ∣
dt ∫V(t)
F(𝕩, t) d𝕩 = F(ξ(𝕩0 , t), t) ∣ ∣ d𝕩0

∫V(0) { ∂t
F(ξ(𝕩0 , t), t) + ∇F(ξ(𝕩0 , t), t) ⋅ ξt (𝕩0 , t)} ∣
∂ ∣ ∂𝕩 ∣
∫V(0)
= ∣ d𝕩0 + F(ξ(𝕩0 , t), t)
∣ ∂𝕩0 ∣
d𝕩0 .
Using some matrix calculus we can obtain

∂ ∣ ∂𝕩 ∣ ∣ ∂𝕩 ∣
∣ ∣ = ∇ ⋅ ξt (𝕩0 , t) ∣ ∣.
∂t ∣ ∂𝕩0 ∣ ∣ ∂𝕩0 ∣
Hence,

∫V(0) { ∂t
+ ∇F ⋅ ξt + F∇ ⋅ ξt } ∣
d ∂F ∣ ∂𝕩 ∣
dt ∫V(t)
F(𝕩, t) d𝕩 = ∣ d𝕩0
∣ ∂𝕩0 ∣
.
∫V(0) { ∂t t }
∂F ∣ ∂𝕩 ∣
= + ∇ ⋅ ( F ξ ) ∣ ∣
∣ ∂𝕩0 ∣
d 𝕩0

∫V(t) { ∂t
+ ∇ ⋅ (F𝕓)} d𝕩,
d ∂F
dt ∫V(t)
F(𝕩, t) d𝕩 =

where

## 𝕓(𝕩, t) = ξt (ξ−1 (𝕩, t), t)

is the "velocity field" corresponding to the map defining the moving control volume.

## An application of the divergence theorem yields

d ∂F
∫ ∫ ∫A(t)
F(𝕩, t) d𝕩 = d𝕩 + F𝕓 ⋅ 𝕟 dS.
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1918699/trouble-with-the-derivation-of-the-reynolds-transport-theorem
V(t) V(t) Page 2 of 3
multivariable calculus - Trouble with the derivation of the Reynolds Transport Theorem - Mathematics Stack Exchange 1/1/18, 9'59 PM

d ∂F
dt ∫V(t) ∫V(t) ∂t ∫A(t)
F(𝕩, t) d𝕩 = d𝕩 + F𝕓 ⋅ 𝕟 dS.

A material control volume is one which always contains the same fluid particles and the field 𝕓
coincides with the Eulerian fluid velocity field 𝕦.

## edited Sep 9 '16 at 6:52 answered Sep 9 '16 at 6:43

RRL
34.3k 3 18 49

Thank you for your answer but i'm still not sure that I understand. I agree and it's a good point that even when
MV and CV are coincident their boundary velocities need not be equal but I didn't assume that they were.
Further I appreciate the derivation and I have seen others like it before but I am not following what you mean.
I realize that when RTT is applied to a MV that b = u, and I did that, are you suggesting that it is inappropriate
to apply to either the CV or the MV ? Thanks! – c6754 Sep 14 '16 at 19:57

@c6754: You're welcome. You seem to recognize that the left-hand sides of (1) and (2) are not necessarily
equal for a general CV -- even if it coincides with MV at an instant. Your assessment of equality in (4) is
correct. Thus the fact that the derivatives are unequal must be because the surface integrals on the right-
hand sides of (1) and (2) are different. – RRL Sep 15 '16 at 20:02
t
Perhaps looking at a one-dimensional example will make this clear. Consider F(t) = ∫0 x dx and
t2
G(t) = ∫0 x dx. Then at t = 1 the moving intervals of integration coincide and F(1) = G(1) , but the
derivatives do not: F(t) = t 2 /2 ⟹ F ′ (t) = t ⟹ F ′ (1) = 1 and
G(t) = t 4 /2 ⟹ G′ (t) = 2t 3 ⟹ G′ (1) = 2 ≠ F ′ (1). – RRL Sep 15 '16 at 20:30

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1918699/trouble-with-the-derivation-of-the-reynolds-transport-theorem Page 3 of 3