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

Null space — where it appears

The directions an operator sends to nothing, which leave an answer fixed only up to them. Their presence decides whether a problem has a solution at all, and where they exist a gauge condition has to be chosen before anything can be computed.

Named by 8 essays across 4 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

One more condition, and the price of it. The model problem ε u″ + u′ = 0 with a condition at each end, at three values of ε. The outer solution is the flat line at one — that is the whole of the answer when ε is zero, and it is a first-order equation that can meet one condition, so it meets the one at the far end and misses the one at the wall by the whole range. Restoring ε restores the second condition and pays for it with a layer of thickness ε, inside which the gradient is of order 1/ε. The product of those two — which is what a stress is — does not depend on ε at all: it is 1.0000 at every value tried, to nine decimal places. Drag does not vanish as viscosity does. It converges.

How many things a flow must be told

The equations of motion do not have one answer. They have as many as the conditions on the edge allow, and the number of those is decided by the order of the equation — which is why viscosity does not make the same problem harder, it makes a different problem.

kinematics · Boundary conditions 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 A closed wake, and the loading of least drag on it. The wake of a box wing in the plane that decides its drag, with the circulation of least induced drag drawn as a thickness along it. The horizontal members carry a loading close to elliptic and the vertical ones carry a share that lifts nothing — they contribute no lift, since lift is Γ dy and dy is zero on a vertical, and they change the drag by changing where the wake's vorticity is. At a gap of 20 per cent of span this system costs 67.1 per cent of what a single wing of the same span and lift would.

A wake that closes on itself

Prandtl's best wing system is a rectangle, not a wing. Solving for the loading on a closed wake turns up a circulation that costs nothing and does nothing — a gauge freedom in the middle of an optimisation — and a drag that keeps falling with no floor under it.

circulation · Box wing The wall is a boundary condition, solved for rather than reflected. A model's trailing vortices in a closed working section, with the sheet of sources that makes the wall a wall drawn as a displacement of the wall itself. The interference is an upwash — the model looks better than it is, and the correction factor comes to 0.1242 against the exact value 0.1250 that the image at the inverse point gives for a circle. The arrows are the interference velocity alone, with the model's own downwash removed, drawn to a common scale set by the longest of them.

The walls are in the answer

A wind tunnel measures a wing in a box the aeroplane will never fly in, and the box is worth a fifteenth of the induced drag. The correction is exactly an eighth for a closed circular section and exactly minus an eighth for an open jet, and the sign is the whole argument.

circulation · Tunnel interference Four wakes carrying exactly the same drag. Four velocity-deficit profiles behind a body, each normalised so that the integral of the deficit across the wake is exactly the same. That integral is the drag: the far-wake momentum balance says so with no assumption about the shape of anything. The four are a narrow Gaussian, a wide top hat, the two-lobed wake a body with a splitter plate leaves, and a profile with heavy tails.

Exact in the total, free in the profile

A constraint is one number imposed on a function. Four wakes built to carry exactly the same drag differ by a factor of four and a half in their peak deficit, and the general statement behind that is a question about angles: how much of the wanted answer survives being projected off the constraints, and how much does not.

regimes · Dimensional The same data, in a basis the theorem allows just as much. The identical two hundred and forty points, plotted as F/(mu U d) — which is the drag coefficient times the Reynolds number, a perfectly legitimate pi group forming a complete pair with the abscissa. The result is a straight line of slope 0.9985 through five decades with an r-squared of 0.9985, and it contains no physics: the ordinate contains the abscissa.

The groups are not the only groups

Buckingham's theorem fixes how many dimensionless groups an answer can depend on and says nothing about which. Two of the infinitely many legitimate choices are used here on the same data: one manufactures a straight line through five decades out of a constant, and the other erases Stokes' law completely.

regimes · Dimensional Four views, four guesses at what they missed. The earlier essay's field — two puffs and an oblique streak — and its reconstructions from the same four views, each choosing the part of the field the views cannot see by a different assumption. With none it is set to zero: an error of 42.8 per cent. The smoothest field the views allow: 39.8. A non-negative field: 24.7. A sum of Gaussian puffs of one width: 37.6. The first three meet every one of the 96 rays; the dictionary's does not.

A prior the pictures can refute is the one worth having

A few views of a flow with no symmetry leave most of the field unseen, and a reconstruction has to fill that part in by assuming something. Three common assumptions were tried on the same field and the same views. Non-negativity saves three views of ten, and five on a field of puffs; smoothness saves one; a dictionary of known shapes saves none unless it is exactly right, and when it is nearly right it can be wrong by a factor of a hundred. The prior that helps most is also the one the data can catch being wrong.

misconceptions · Visualisation With the weight chosen from the data, non-negativity still saves views, and the saving shrinks as the noise grows. The fewest views that bring each prior's reconstruction of a field of two puffs within fifteen per cent of the truth, against the noise on the rays as a share of the rms ray: solid with each prior's weight chosen by the discrepancy principle, from the data alone; dashed with the weight that knows the answer. Points drawn at 25 never get there. At one per cent noise no prior needs 8 views and non-negativity 4; at three per cent, 8 and 6, against 4 with the answer known; at ten per cent, more than 24 and 10, against 7.

A prior chosen from noisy pictures keeps most of its gain, and a wrong one loses its alibi

With exact rays, a reconstruction's prior could be judged by its error, and a constraint that was wrong gave itself away by missing its own rays. With noise every prior needs a weight — how far to trust the rays against the assumption — and the weight has to be chosen without the answer. Chosen where the misfit falls to the noise, it costs the smooth and unassuming priors almost nothing and non-negativity two or three views, so the ranking survives. What does not survive is the refutation: a dictionary that misses a field's rays by four per cent is caught at three per cent noise and invisible at seven, where it fits the noise as well as any prior and is about as accurate as they are.

misconceptions · Visualisation

Named alongside it

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

MeasurementBoundary conditionModel limitRegularisationCirculationConvergenceDimensional analysisDownwashFlow visualisationInduced dragInverse problemLaplace's equation

All concepts