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

Tolerance — where it appears

The amount of error a stated calculation is allowed to carry, which is what turns a smooth departure into a threshold. Almost every rule of thumb in this subject has one buried in it, and the number quoted is meaningless without it.

Named by 17 essays across 5 fields — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Where the number says, and where it happens. Fourteen dimensionless groups on one logarithmic axis. The open circle on each row is the value at which the two terms the group compares are equal, which is one by the way the group is formed; the filled mark is the value at which the thing a reader cares about first changes by 1%. The bar between them is the distance the folklore phrase "of order one" hides, and it runs from nothing at all to a factor of 594.

What "of order one" is worth

A dimensionless group is built by comparing two terms, so it is one when the terms are equal — and that is the only thing it says. Where the behaviour actually changes is a separate question with a separate answer, and across fourteen groups on this site the two numbers differ by factors from one to five hundred and ninety-four.

regimes · Crossover How wrong the ordinary answer already is. The error in a no-slip continuum calculation of the flow through a channel, against the Knudsen number, both logarithmic. The rule at Kn = 1 is where a molecule crosses the whole channel between collisions — the value the number is named for. The error is one per cent at Kn = 1/594, five per cent at 1/114 and ten at 1/54, so the continuum regime of the usual classification, which runs to Kn = 0.01, is a region in which the continuum answer is already six per cent out at its far end.

Where a fluid stops being one

The Knudsen number is the mean free path over the size of the thing, and at one a molecule crosses the whole channel between collisions. The continuum equations with a no-slip wall are already one per cent wrong at one part in five hundred and ninety-four, which is a factor nothing about the definition would suggest.

regimes · Knudsen Quasi-steady stops being true a long way before one. The magnitude of Theodorsen's function, which is the factor a quasi-steady lift calculation is wrong by, and the phase the lift lags the motion. Quasi-steady means C = 1, and the amplitude is already one per cent low at k = 0.0061 and fifteen per cent low at k = 0.1 — a reduced frequency at which nobody hesitates to call a flow quasi-steady. The lag is worse: it reaches a degree at k = 0.003, and a flutter calculation is decided by phase rather than by amplitude.

Slow enough to be steady

A wing moving slowly enough is assumed to carry the lift its instantaneous angle asks for. The reduced frequency has two thresholds — one where the apparent-mass and circulatory lifts are equal, and one where the quasi-steady answer stops being right — and they are a hundred and seventy-eight apart.

regimes · Reduced frequency An hour for every tenfold, for ever. How long a forecast lasts, against how well the initial state is known. The relation is T = ln(tolerance/error)/lambda — exactly logarithmic — so improving the measurement by a factor of ten buys exactly the same extra time every time: ln(10)/lambda, which for this flow is 24.5 time units. It does not get harder and it does not get easier.

An hour for every tenfold

Turbulence is deterministic and unpredictable, and the exchange rate between those two is exact: measuring the initial state ten times better buys the same extra forecast time every time, for ever. A constant, and it belongs to the flow rather than to the instrument.

misconceptions · Randomness How small is small enough. The error in Stokes' law for the drag on a sphere, against the Reynolds number, both logarithmic. Oseen's correction is the first term the neglected inertia puts back, and it says the error is 3Re/16: one per cent at Re = 16/297 = 0.054, five per cent at 0.28, and already sixteen per cent at Re = 1 — which is the value at which the two terms the Reynolds number compares are equal, and is where every textbook draws the boundary of creeping flow.

How small is small enough

Creeping flow drops the inertia terms and gets an exact answer for the drag on a sphere. The Reynolds number at which those terms are equal is one — and at one, Stokes' law is already sixteen per cent low. The honest boundary is 0.054, and the reason it is so far down is the same reason the theory needed repairing in the first place.

regimes · Reynolds How big before gravity shows. A drop's height over its width against the Bond number, which is the ratio of its weight to the force its own skin can supply. The number is one where those two are equal, and by then the drop is a bun: it is one per cent from a ball at Bo = 0.0079, five per cent at 0.054 and ten at 0.13. Every one of those is below one, and the first is below it by a factor of a hundred and twenty-six.

The size a drop is allowed

The Bond number sets a drop's weight against the force its own skin can supply, and it is one when they are equal. By then the drop is a bun — it is a per cent from being a ball at Bond number 0.0079, which is a water drop half a millimetre across.

regimes · Bond Which speed the number is formed on. The fractional change in air density at three places on a body, against the free-stream Mach number. At a stagnation point the density rises, and it reaches five per cent at M = 0.314 — which is where the familiar 0.3 comes from, and it is a five per cent tolerance rather than a physical boundary. At the suction peak the density falls instead, and how fast depends on the body: a lightly loaded section is milder than its own nose, and one working at cp₀ = −2 reaches five per cent at M = 0.22 and is at Mach 0.55 over its shoulder while the free stream is at 0.3.

Which speed goes in the number

The most quoted threshold in the subject — air is incompressible below Mach 0.3 — is a five per cent tolerance on the density at a stagnation point wearing a physical boundary's clothes. A wing working for its living is at Mach 0.55 over its shoulder while the free stream is still at 0.3.

regimes · Mach The error in the balance is the number itself. The fractional error in the geostrophic wind, against the Rossby number, on logarithmic axes. It is a straight line of slope one through the origin, and that is not an approximation: keeping the centripetal term gives V_g/V = 1 ± Ro exactly, so the error and the number are the same quantity. The geostrophic wind is one per cent right at Ro = 0.01 and a hundred per cent wrong at Ro = 1, which is the value the number is named for and is quoted as the boundary of the approximation.

The balance that is its own error

Geostrophic balance is licensed by the Rossby number being small, and the fractional error in the geostrophic wind is the Rossby number — exactly, not approximately. So the balance everybody uses at Ro of order one is a hundred per cent wrong, and the same quadratic has a hard limit at a quarter that no anticyclone can pass.

regimes · Geostrophy Where a profile stops being a parabola. Two measures of how far Womersley's solution has left the quasi-steady parabola, against the Womersley number, both logarithmic. The amplitude deficit reaches a hundredth at α = 0.28 and the phase lag reaches a hundredth of a right angle at α = 0.22 — both well below α = 1, which is where the unsteady and viscous terms are equal and is the value the number is named for. By α = 1 itself the flow is already a tenth short and eight degrees late.

Where the parabola goes

A pipe carrying a steady flow has a parabolic profile, and the Womersley number is supposed to say when an oscillating one still does. For the flow rate it is very nearly honest — one per cent at α = 0.91 — and for the phase it is out by a factor of three, because a lag is second order in the number and an amplitude deficit is fourth.

regimes · Womersley The number a duct settles at is an eigenvalue. The local Nusselt number against x⁺ = x/(D·Re·Pr), from a Crank–Nicolson march that contains no eigenvalue anywhere. It settles at 3.6568, which is λ₀²/2 for the Graetz eigenvalue problem — a completely separate calculation. The mark at x⁺ = 0.05 is the entry length every textbook quotes: it delivers a Nusselt number 1.45 per cent above the developed value, which is a perfectly reasonable tolerance and is never the one stated.

How far before the heat arrives

A duct's thermal entry length is quoted everywhere as x/(D·Re·Pr) = 0.05, with no tolerance attached. Working out what it delivers gives a Nusselt number 1.45 per cent above the developed value — and the developed value itself is not a term ratio at all but an eigenvalue, 3.6568, which is also the rate at which the duct forgets its inlet.

regimes · Peclet A patch of dye, folded. A circle of marker particles carried by the flow, at four times. It is stretched into a filament and folded through itself, and its area does not change at any point of that — which is not visible in the picture, and is the whole difficulty. A scheme that lost eight per cent an orbit would produce a picture indistinguishable from this one.

The area that must not move

A patch of dye in an incompressible two-dimensional flow keeps exactly the area it started with, for ever. Two respectable integrators are put on the same flow: one respects that identically at any step size, the other does not, and the pictures they draw are the same picture.

kinematics · Advection The core that does not move, and where its edge is. Four velocity profiles at the same pressure gradient and four yield stresses. The shear stress in a pipe is G r/2 whatever the fluid is — that is a force balance and not a constitutive law — so the fluid is unyielded exactly inside r = 2 tau_y/G, and the plug radius is known before anything is solved.

The core that does not move

Toothpaste in a tube has a region in the middle that is not being sheared at all, and its edge is at a radius you can write down before solving anything. Four things about that core are exact, and one of them is that the fluid does not flow below a threshold — not slowly, at all.

viscous · Non-newtonian A pure number with no fluid in it. The load a plane slider bearing carries, divided by everything dimensional in it. What is left is a function of the convergence ratio alone — no viscosity, no speed, no size, no material — so the tilt that carries the most load is decided before anything about the machine is known. It is the root of one transcendental equation, at 2.1887048.

The gap that carries the most

A bearing's most consequential dimension is decided by a number with no oil in it, no speed and no size — the root of one transcendental equation, at 2.1887048. And the maximum it sits on is flat enough that the value printed in every handbook is not it.

viscous · Lubrication And they are one piece of arithmetic. All three corrections against one over the logarithm of their own large parameter. Each is a straight line through the origin, with its own slope: one third exactly for the enstrophy range, near one for the wall layer, and near ln 10 for Oseen's per-decade measure. Three disappointments in three different fields, written up separately, are the same function.

The three that never converge

Oseen's drag coefficient, the overlap layer's power-law exponent and the enstrophy range's slope are three separate disappointments in three different fields. They are one piece of arithmetic, and the arithmetic says why none of them will ever be reached.

regimes · Crossover Fourteen pure numbers, and where each came from. Every one of these is dimensionless, exact and quoted as a fact about fluids. None of them comes from dimensional analysis, which says which numbers an answer may depend on and never what any of them is. They come in four kinds — algebra, an integral, a root and an optimum — and the last two are not equally knowable.

Where a pure number comes from

Sixty-four for a round pipe, sixteen twenty-sevenths for a wind turbine, 0.332 for Blasius. Counting dimensions produces none of them — it produces the list of arguments, and the function has to be solved. Which of the four ways it was solved decides how many digits are worth printing.

regimes · Dimensional How flat the optimum is. The same curve near its maximum, with the bands within a tenth and a half of one per cent of the best shaded. Every taper ratio from 0.31 to 0.42 is within a tenth of a per cent of the optimum, and the whole band from 0.25 to 0.51 is within half a per cent. The optimum is exact, and choosing it rather than its neighbour buys nothing a wing can measure.

The optimum that does not matter

Elliptic loading gives the least induced drag, exactly, and the proof is one line: the penalty is a sum of squares. Which is also why the optimum is flat enough that a quarter of the design space sits inside a tenth of a per cent of it.

circulation · Taper The damping crosses zero once, and the crossing is the boundary. The least damping ratio of the four aeroelastic modes against speed. It falls through zero at 80.843 metres a second, and at that speed the crossing root's real part is four parts in 10¹⁸ — which is what an algebraic condition on a quartic with real coefficients looks like when it is solved numerically.

The speed where the damping is exactly zero

Flutter is an algebraic condition on a quartic: one root crosses the imaginary axis, at one speed, exactly. And the quantity that locates it is so nearly flat there that the standard way of finding it from flight test overshoots by a quarter.

circulation · Flutter

Named alongside it

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

DimensionlessThresholdMeasurementConvergenceDiscretisationEigenvalueRegimeAsymptoticsOptimisationAdvectionChaosCreeping flow

All concepts