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

Every essay — page 28

Page 28 of 61, continuing through the fields in the same order.

Flows and fields Ideal flow Circulation and lift Viscosity Regimes and numbers Compressible flow Transition and turbulence Fluids at work What is taught wrongly Series Concepts Regimes Refutations Search

Flows and fields

Streamlines, particle paths and the field that carries them. What is conserved, what a picture of a flow can show, and what it cannot.

A streamtube narrows and the flow speeds up. Two neighbouring streamlines bound a tube that no fluid crosses. Where the tube pinches, the same mass has to pass through a smaller gap every second, so it must move faster — which is mass conservation with no equations in sight.

Mass has nowhere to go

Squeeze a stream of fluid and it speeds up, not because anything pushes it but because the same amount has to get through a smaller gap every second. Almost every result in the subject is that observation with more machinery attached.

6 figures 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.

What a flow is

A fluid is made of molecules and nobody models it that way. Treating it as a continuous field with a velocity at every point is an approximation, an extremely good one, and knowing why it works is knowing where it stops.

6 figures The acceleration field of a steady flow. How hard the fluid is being accelerated at each point of a steady flow past a cylinder. The flow does not change with time anywhere in this picture, and yet almost nowhere in it is a parcel travelling at constant velocity — the pattern stands still while the fluid running through it is thrown about.

Steady does not mean nothing is happening

Photograph the flow past a cylinder twice and the two pictures are identical. Every parcel of air in them is being thrown about — braked to a dead stop, hauled round the shoulder at nearly twice the free-stream speed, braked again. Both statements are exactly true.

7 figures 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.

6 figures The number on a streamline is a flow rate. Two streamlines and a crooked line drawn between them. The volume of fluid crossing that line every second, integrated from the velocity field, is the difference between the two streamfunction values at its ends — which is what makes a streamline a label rather than merely a curve.

The number on a streamline is a flow rate

Streamlines get drawn as decoration — curves the flow follows, spaced however the plotting looked best. Each one carries a number, the difference between two of those numbers is the volume of fluid passing between them every second, and it does not matter what route the measurement takes.

8 figures 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.

7 figures 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.

8 figures The one place the stretching argument closes. Burgers' vortex: an axisymmetric strain carrying vorticity inwards at exactly the rate viscosity spreads it outwards. The vorticity profile is a Gaussian of radius √(4ν/α), the swirl velocity peaks at 1.12 core radii rather than at the core radius itself, and the circulation reaches its full value by about two. The steady vorticity equation is evaluated on this profile by differencing it, not by re-deriving it.

The spin that feeds itself

Stretch a vortex tube and its spin rises in exact proportion, because the circulation round it cannot change and its area has fallen. Nothing in that argument sets a limit — and the one flow where the limit can be written down exactly puts it at a length of √(4ν/α).

8 figures The same patch, 6 periods later, in two flows. A round patch of 848 marked particles, advanced 6 periods by the blinking flow and by a steady flow of the same strength. The steady flow has drawn the patch into a smooth ribbon along a streamline and every particle in it is still on the streamline it started on; the blinking flow has folded the patch through itself repeatedly and its particles are spread across the whole region. Neither flow has any diffusion in it and neither has lost a particle. The difference between them is that one depends on time.

No randomness, and it mixes anyway

A steady two-dimensional flow cannot mix, however fast it is stirred, because its trajectories are its streamlines. Switch two vortices on and off alternately and the same fluid, obeying an exact map with nothing random in it, folds a patch of dye through itself until neighbouring particles separate by a factor of a thousand in six periods.

8 figures Two centres, two saddles, and a sum of nothing. A separation pattern: a uniform stream with two counter-rotating cored vortices in it, which reproduces the arrangement of critical points behind a body at a Reynolds number of a few tens. There are exactly four — a saddle where the flow divides, a centre in each recirculating cell, and a saddle where it closes — and their indices sum to 0. The winding number of a loop enclosing all of them is 0, which is what a uniform stream far away requires. A bubble costs nothing in this bookkeeping, which is why one is free to appear.

The count a pattern cannot break

A picture of a flow has stagnation points in it, and they are not free to be arranged as anybody likes. Their kinds and their number obey an integer constraint that has nothing to do with the equations of motion — and an incompressible flow in a plane is allowed only two kinds of them in the first place.

8 figures 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.

8 figures The wall makes vorticity at a rate with no viscosity in it. At a stationary wall the momentum equation collapses to ν ∂²u/∂y² = (1/ρ) ∂p/∂x, and the left-hand side is the diffusive flux of vorticity out of the surface. So the pressure gradient along the wall is the vorticity source, and the viscosity that made the no-slip condition necessary has cancelled out of what the condition produces. The curve is that flux across the Falkner–Skan family, computed from profiles solved by shooting and differenced at the wall; the straight line is the pressure gradient each of those flows has. They agree to 2.3e-14. At zero pressure gradient the flux is exactly zero: a flat plate creates no vorticity at all after its leading edge, and everything in its layer arrived from there.

Where vorticity comes from

Every scrap of vorticity in a flow past a body entered through its surface, and the rate at which it enters contains no viscosity at all — it is the pressure gradient along the wall. A flat plate makes none, and a closed body makes exactly as much of each sign.

7 figures