I'm reading this paper and trying to follow everything that the author has done.

A Comparative Study of Finite Volume Method and Finite Difference Method for Convection-Diffusion Problem

But there is a problem. I cannot derive the following equation (third line in equation (6) of [1]) for two reasons:


  1. I cannot match the expression marked by "1" in red.
  2. The signs are opposite for the part marked by "2"

Does anybody know how the author has derived this equation?

  • $\begingroup$ @AntonMenshov Are you sure that it is finite-difference? isn't it finite-volume? $\endgroup$
    – Roh
    Mar 17, 2018 at 6:49
  • $\begingroup$ The paper has sections on both (btw, inside the paper it has both tags), and your question is pretty independent from FV and TD in particular, so I considered it fair to add an FD tag. $\endgroup$
    – Anton Menshov
    Mar 17, 2018 at 6:52
  • $\begingroup$ ....Or if you are talking about the title for the question -> it's your call. You can improve my edit, I just want it to be representative and readable. $\endgroup$
    – Anton Menshov
    Mar 17, 2018 at 6:53

1 Answer 1


Initially, the equation (6) is derived from equation (4):

$$ F_e\Phi_e-F_w\Phi_w=D_e(\Phi_E-\Phi_P)-D_w(\Phi_P-\Phi_W) $$ under the central differencing approximation $\Phi_e=(\Phi_P+\Phi_E)/2$, $\Phi_w=(\Phi_W+\Phi_P)/2$. Naturally, (4) becomes the first line of (6):

$$ \frac{F_e}{2}(\Phi_P+\Phi_E)-\frac{\color{red}{F_w}}{2}(\Phi_W+\Phi_P) = D_e(\Phi_E-\Phi_P)-D_w(\Phi_P-\Phi_W) $$

Notice, there is probably a typo (highlighted in red) in the first line of the equation (6) as in the second term $F_w$ is mistyped with $F_e$. Otherwise, those terms just simplify and the second line of (6), where $F_w$ magically appears again does not make any sense. Nevermind, the proposed by authors continuity equation $F_e-F_w=0$ equate them anyway.

Next, naturally, we will move all the terms with $\Phi_P$ to the left-hand side, and everything else to the right-hand side and group the coefficients in front of $\Phi_P$, $\Phi_W$, and $\Phi_E$ in a convenient form. So,

$$ \frac{F_e}{2}\Phi_P-\frac{F_w}{2}\Phi_P+D_e\Phi_P+D_w\Phi_P =-\frac{F_e}{2}\Phi_E+\frac{F_w}{2}\Phi_W+ D_e\Phi_E+D_w\Phi_W $$

finally resulting in the second line of (6), where the sign seems to be wrong, as far as I understand, (highlighted in red):

$$ \left[\underbrace{\left(D_w-\frac{F_w}{2}\right)+\left(D_e\color{red}{+}\frac{F_e}{2} \right)}_{*}\right]\Phi_P =\left(D_e-\frac{F_e}{2}\right)\Phi_E+\left(D_w+\frac{F_w}{2}\right)\Phi_W $$

No, by adding $(F_w-F_e)$ to (*) (I can do it since by continuity equation the added expression is 0):

$$ \left[\left(D_w-\frac{F_w}{2}+F_w\right)+\left(D_e+\frac{F_e}{2} -F_e\right)\right]\Phi_P =\left(D_e-\frac{F_e}{2}\right)\Phi_E+\left(D_w+\frac{F_w}{2}\right)\Phi_W $$ I can arrive to: $$ \left[\left(D_w+\frac{F_w}{2}\right)+\left(D_e-\frac{F_e}{2}\right)\right]\Phi_P =\left(D_e-\frac{F_e}{2}\right)\Phi_E+\left(D_w+\frac{F_w}{2}\right)\Phi_W $$ and now by adding $F_e-F_w$ I arrive to the final third line of (6): $$ \left[\left(D_w+\frac{F_w}{2}\right)+\left(D_e-\frac{F_e}{2}\right)+(F_e-F_w)\right]\Phi_P =\left(D_e-\frac{F_e}{2}\right)\Phi_E+\left(D_w+\frac{F_w}{2}\right)\Phi_W $$

It seems like the final expression of (6) in the paper you cited is correct (provided (4) is correct, continuity equation is physical and central differencing is taken care of - which it probably is). However, the derivation that they have shown in the first two lines of equation (6) contains $\approx 1.5$ confusing bugs. 1.5 - because $F_e$ is technically equal to $F_w$.


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.