Talk:Finite volume method

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mathematics Low‑priority This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MathematicsWikipedia:WikiProject MathematicsTemplate:WikiProject Mathematicsmathematics Low This article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale. Physics: Fluid Dynamics Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Fluid Dynamics Taskforce.

The finite volume method looks similar to the finite element method. In both cases, the integral by a subdomain is approximated by a mean value...

There are differences too; they are two completely different methods A.N. Yzelman 09:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply

We need to add a section on upwinding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeneralKickass (talk • contribs) 04:32, 25 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Looks to me like there is a sign error in equations (4), (5), and (6). Someone should verify, but it appears that when df/dx was moved to the right hand side, it was not turned negative.

Think about it, for the amount of rho at time two to be greater than at time one, you need a net decreasing flux to the right (df/dx must be negative). Thus for the integral in equation (4) to be valid, it must be subtracted from the initial amount of rho.

The same correction is needed with (5), and with (6) either the sign on the flux integrals should be swapped, or the indexes can be. When the equation was re-arranged in (7), correct sign convention appears to be in order again.

If this is the case and I'm not just going nuts about nothing, someone with equation-editing know-how ought to give it a quick adjust. --LANMasta (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

• You are correct and I have made the necessary changes. I have also made some other minor modifications that I hope will aid understanding. Griffgruff (talk) 10:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

I would modify the subject "General hyperbolic problem" into "General conservation law". In fact, the form of equation there reported is the general form of a conservation law, which need not be always hyperbolic. For instance, Navier-Stokes equation without external forcing term have that same general form, but they're parabolic instead of hyperbolic. Waiting for agreement by previous authors. Giorgio.bornia (talk) 15:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

• Good point - done! Griffgruff (talk) 11:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

To me the proof seems wrong from equation (6) to equation (7). While the proof describes that (7) is obtained from (6) by differentiating (6) with respect to time, what is needed instead is

1. Divide the equation by Δt,

2. Assume t_2 = t_1 + Δt,

3. Let Δt -> 0, and assume t_1 is a general time t.

Can someone confirm this? Schimmel-chip (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply