Conservation of linear momentum in RH relations

  • #1
GeologistInDisguise
6
1
TL;DR Summary
How is the pictured equation a conservation of momentum equation and what does pressure have to do with it?
I am trying to follow a derivation of the Rankine-Hugoniot equations in a paper by Peter Krehl titled:

The classical Rankine-Hugoniot jump conditions, an important cornerstone of modern shock wave physics: ideal assumptions vs. reality
1699572663390.png

This paper talks about the RH equations which relate kinematic properties to thermodynamic ones when a shock is transiting a material. See photo above for an illustration. In section 2.2.2 when discussing this relation in terms of Lagrangian coordinates, equation 4a is introduced and described as conservation of linear momentum:

1699571651118.png


Where P is pressure, rho is density, u is particle velocity, 0 indicates downstream or preshock and 1 indicates upstream or post shock.

While the units do make sense, how is this conservation of momentum? if momentum is m*v, I suppose you could divide by volume to replace mass with density, but then why is velocity squared? And why is pressure being added?

I understand pressure is force/area and also that force is the change in momentum with time. I am guessing this has something to do with it but I am not getting anything that would give me a squared velocity. Obviously if I integrate my mass normalized momentum equation with respect to time, that would give me a velocity squared. But why would I do that?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
ΔP is a force which changes momentum
ρu2 is the amount of momentum that is flowing into/out of the box (think m=ρuAΔt)
the AΔt is also attached to the pressures, so it cancels out
 
  • #3
Frabjous said:
ΔP is a force which changes momentum
ρu2 is the amount of momentum that is flowing into/out of the box (think m=ρuAΔt)
the AΔt is also attached to the pressures, so it cancels out
I think that makes sense, but why then is velocity squared?
 
  • #4
GeologistInDisguise said:
I think that makes sense, but why then is velocity squared?
The “mass” has a velocity in it. You then have to multiply it by velocity to get momentum.
 
  • #5
Frabjous said:
The “mass” has a velocity in it. You then have to multiply it by velocity to get momentum.
Oh, in your previous comment was m mass or momentum? I assumed you meant it was momentum since we were using P for pressure already but I think this makes more sense if you did actually mean mass.
 
  • #6
Particle KE = ½·m·v² ≈ absolute temperature.
(speed of sound)² ≈ Tabs
The speed of sound is a direct function of √Tabs only.
Temperature is an indirect function of pressure.
 
  • #7
Baluncore said:
Particle KE = ½·m·v² ≈ absolute temperature.
(speed of sound)² ≈ Tabs
The speed of sound is a direct function of √Tabs only.
Temperature is an indirect function of pressure.
This is an interesting point but I am not seeing how it is relevant to the question posted about conservation of momentum?
 
  • #8
GeologistInDisguise said:
Oh, in your previous comment was m mass or momentum? I assumed you meant it was momentum since we were using P for pressure already but I think this makes more sense if you did actually mean mass.
I meant mass.
The equation holds in the reference frame where the shock velocity is zero. So there is a discrepancy between the picture and the equation. I believe the picture should have Us=0.
There are several versions of the equation. Which one is useful depends on the application.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
67
Views
5K
Replies
26
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top