Fluid Flow & Aerodynamics
why things fly, and why the usual explanation is wrong
Concept

Irrotational — where it appears

Having no vorticity anywhere, so that the velocity is the gradient of a scalar potential. A flow started from rest in an inviscid fluid stays this way for ever, which is both the theory's greatest convenience and the reason it cannot produce lift on its own.

Named by 15 essays across 4 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Ideal flow past a cylinder. A uniform stream past a circular cylinder in a fluid with no viscosity. The solution is exact and closed-form: streamlines part at a stagnation point, run round the surface and close up perfectly behind, and the pressure recovers to exactly what it was in front.

The theory that solves everything

Throw away viscosity and assume nothing is spinning, and fluid mechanics collapses into a linear problem with closed-form answers. The price is one term, and the term turns out to matter more than everything kept.

inviscid · Ideal flow The hypotheses Bernoulli's equation needs. The equation is correct and its hypotheses are strict. Most misuse is not a wrong formula but a right formula carried across a streamline, through a machine, or into a region where viscosity dominates.

Where Bernoulli's equation applies

The equation is right. Its hypotheses are strict, and almost all misuse is a correct formula carried somewhere it does not hold — across streamlines, through a fan, or into the one layer where friction is the whole story.

misconceptions · Bernoulli's equation The velocity field, arrows to scale. The same flow drawn as arrows. Scaled to the local speed the picture is honest and crowded; drawn all the same length it is legible and hides the very variation the figure is about.

Spin is not the same as going round

A whirlpool whose streamlines are perfect circles can have no rotation in it anywhere. A flow whose streamlines are dead straight and parallel can be rotating everywhere. Both statements are true, and getting them the wrong way round is the most expensive confusion in the subject.

kinematics · Vorticity Stokes' theorem on a solved wake at Re 40. A rectangle drawn in a viscous flow that was solved on a grid. The circulation round its boundary is computed by walking the four sides and adding up the velocity along them; the vorticity inside it is computed by adding up the stored vorticity cell by cell. The two computations share no sample point and the theorem says they must agree.

Circulation is vorticity, added up

One of these two quantities is measured by walking round a loop and one by summing over the area inside it, and a theorem says they are the same number. That reconciles the site's most confusable pair — and explains how a flow with circulation can have no spin in it anywhere.

kinematics · Vorticity A circle of fluid, 0.90 of a gradient time later. A material circle in a uniform velocity gradient, carried by the exact matrix exponential of that gradient. It becomes an ellipse — always an ellipse, for every gradient — and the axes it stretches along are the eigenvectors of the symmetric half. In an incompressible flow the area is unchanged however extreme the distortion, which is the statement that stretching in one direction is squashing in the other.

What a parcel does in the first instant

Drop a circle of dye into a flow and it becomes an ellipse. The velocity gradient that did it splits into a stretch and a spin in exactly one way, the split is not a convention, and one half of it is the reason a fluid has any stress in it at all.

kinematics · Deformation One field, and the two parts the theorem splits it into. A velocity field made of a smooth source, a smooth vortex and a uniform stream, and the two fields the Helmholtz decomposition returns for it. The first carries the whole divergence and has no curl anywhere; the second carries the whole curl and has no divergence. They are computed by solving two Poisson problems on a grid, with the divergence and the vorticity differenced from the field rather than taken from the expressions that built it. Adding the two back together does not recover the field.

Every flow is two flows

Any velocity field splits into a part carrying all of the divergence and a part carrying all of the vorticity. The theorem says so and does not say which split — the two halves can be moved between each other by anything harmonic, and on a bounded region that is an infinite family.

kinematics · Helmholtz Two divergence-free fields with the same boundary conditions. On the left, the exact potential flow round a cylinder moving through fluid at rest. On the right, the same flow with a divergence-free eddy added — one that has no normal velocity on the body or on the outer circle, so it changes nothing about what crosses a boundary. Both fields conserve mass, both satisfy the wall condition, and only one is the flow. Nothing in the drawing says which.

The flow with the least energy in it

Draw a flow that conserves mass and does not go through the walls, and it will look exactly like a solution. There are infinitely many of them and one is the flow. What separates it from the others is not visible anywhere in the picture — it is a number, and the number is an energy.

inviscid · Least energy One sheared stream, and the total pressure across it. A parallel shear flow is an exact steady solution of the Euler equations, and the momentum equation requires its static pressure to be uniform. So the total pressure is entirely the dynamic pressure, which varies with the speed — by three and a fifth dynamic heads across this layer, on a flow where the static pressure does not vary at all.

Four Bernoullis and one name

"Bernoulli's equation" names at least four statements with four different constants, three domains of validity and one shared reputation for being misapplied. A single sheared stream separates the first three: its total pressure is constant along every streamline, varies by three dynamic heads across them, and its static pressure never moves at all.

misconceptions · Bernoulli's equation A curved shock, and the entropy each streamline picks up crossing it. A parabolic bow shock ahead of a blunt nose at Mach six, with the streamlines drawn arriving horizontally and a marker at each crossing whose size is the total pressure lost there. The streamline through the nose crosses a normal shock and keeps three per cent of its total pressure; one four nose radii out crosses at fourteen degrees and keeps ninety-four per cent. Every streamline gets a different entropy, and the stagnation enthalpy is the same on all of them.

The spin a shock leaves behind

A curved shock gives every streamline a different entropy rise and the same stagnation enthalpy. Crocco's theorem then forces vorticity into a flow with no viscosity anywhere — and it scales as the inverse of the shock's radius of curvature, exactly, so a straight shock makes none.

compressible · Crocco A cylinder in a uniform shear, K = 0.4. A stream whose velocity increases with height, meeting a circular cylinder. The oncoming profile is drawn at the left. The flow carries uniform vorticity −K, so it is a solution of Euler's equations and not of Laplace's, the pattern is no longer symmetric top to bottom, and the body feels a lift towards the fast side with no circulation anywhere.

Inviscid does not mean irrotational

Dropping viscosity gives Euler's equations. Assuming nothing is spinning gives Laplace's — one scalar, linear, unique. The second step is a separate hypothesis about the flow's history, and a flow that fails it is still an inviscid flow with exact solutions of its own.

inviscid · Euler rotational Hill's spherical vortex. A sphere of rotating fluid travelling steadily through fluid at rest, drawn in the frame that moves with it. Outside the sphere the flow is the ordinary potential flow past a sphere; inside, the vorticity is proportional to the distance from the axis and the fluid recirculates. The two solutions match in value and in slope across the surface, and there is no body anywhere — the boundary is a streamline and nothing else.

The one rotational solution anybody can write down

A sphere of spinning fluid travelling steadily through fluid at rest, with no body anywhere in it — the boundary is a streamline and nothing else. It is exact, it is two lines long, and the reason it is the famous one turns out to be the reason it is the only one a real fluid can settle into.

inviscid · Euler rotational One streamline, sectioned, in two steady flows. Every time a single streamline crosses the plane z ≡ 0 going upwards, a point is plotted. On the left the flow is integrable and the points lie on a curve, however long the trajectory is run. On the right one coefficient of the same exact solution has been changed and the same single streamline scatters over a sixth of the plane. Both flows are steady, both are incompressible to machine precision, and both are exact solutions of the Euler equations.

Steady, three-dimensional, and mixing anyway

A steady flow that solves the Euler equations exactly, with its vorticity equal to its velocity to six parts in ten thousand million — and one of its streamlines wanders through a sixth of the box while another, started nearby, lies on a curve for ever.

kinematics · Advection Two exact solutions of the same problem. Two steady Euler flows in the same square cell with the same boundary condition, differing only in the function relating vorticity to streamfunction. On the left the vorticity is proportional to the streamfunction, which is the textbook cellular flow; on the right it is uniform. Both satisfy the equations exactly. Nothing in the ideal theory prefers either, and at the same peak streamfunction their kinetic energies differ by thirty-one per cent.

The vorticity nothing decides

A streamline that comes from upstream carries its vorticity with it. A closed one comes from nowhere, so nothing determines what it carries — the ambiguity is not one number per body but a whole function. What closes it is a limit, and setting the viscosity to zero gives a different answer from letting it go to zero.

inviscid · Euler rotational The excess energy is the energy of the difference, exactly. Add any admissible perturbation to the potential flow and its kinetic energy rises by precisely the energy of the perturbation itself — not approximately, and not to leading order. The measured excess and the perturbation's own energy lie on one another to two parts in 10¹¹ across a sixty-fold range of amplitude.

How much more than the least

Of all the flows that conserve mass and stay inside the walls, the ideal one carries the least energy. That is a theorem, and the useful half of it is the part nobody quotes: it says by exactly how much every other flow misses, and the answer is the square of how wrong it looks.

inviscid · Least energy Four solved flows, and the minimum is on the surface in every one. Sampling the whole exterior of each body on a grid and comparing the lowest pressure found there with the lowest found on the surface. The surface wins by a margin that is not marginal — between 0.18 and 0.56 in pressure coefficient — and it wins for a reason rather than by luck: the pressure of an irrotational flow is superharmonic, and a superharmonic function has its minimum on a boundary.

The lowest pressure is on the body

In an ideal flow the minimum pressure is always on a surface — not usually, not for the shapes people draw, always. The proof is an identity about the velocity gradient, and the identity says exactly which flows are exempt.

inviscid · Ideal flow

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

VorticityBoundary conditionLaplace's equationPotential flowStreamfunctionExact solutionBernoulli's equationCirculationKinetic energyMeasurementModel limitTotal pressure

All concepts