The collection

Every essay — page 32

Page 32 of 39, 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

Transition and turbulence

Where the laminar solutions stop being the ones the flow takes, and what can honestly be said about what follows — which is less than the textbooks imply and more than nothing.

Stable in every mode, and 100 times larger first. The energy of the worst-case disturbance against time, on a logarithmic scale, at four Reynolds numbers and at the one the slider selects. Time is in units of Re, which is what makes the four curves the same shape; what changes with Reynolds number is the height, and it changes as the square. Every eigenvalue of this operator is negative throughout, so nothing that grows here is an instability in the sense a stability analysis reports.

Every mode decays and it grows anyway

A stability analysis asks whether any mode of a flow grows, and for pipe flow the answer is no, at every Reynolds number, which the pipe disagrees with. The missing ingredient is that the modes are not perpendicular — a disturbance made of two nearly parallel decaying pieces can grow by a factor of Re²/16 before it dies.

8 figures

80 per cent of the energy goes to the larger scale. One unit of energy is taken out of the middle wavenumber and shared between its two neighbours. Two conservation laws decide the split completely: the energy must add up, and so must the enstrophy, which weights each wavenumber by k². For (1, 2, 4) the answer is that 80.0 per cent of the energy goes up in scale and 80.0 per cent of the enstrophy goes down. There is no model of turbulence anywhere in that: it is two linear equations in two unknowns, and it is why a two-dimensional flow organises itself into large vortices while its gradients get finer.

The cascade that runs backwards

Three-dimensional turbulence carries energy from large scales to small ones and dissipates it. Take away one dimension and the term that does it vanishes identically, a second quantity becomes conserved, and two conservation laws between them force the energy to go the other way — up in scale, into ever larger vortices.

8 figures

A cross at 30.0° for every wavelength it makes. A body oscillating at ω = 0.5N in a stratified fluid, and the four beams along which its energy leaves. The angle is arccos(ω/N) from the vertical — 30.0 degrees from the horizontal here — and it is the same for every wavelength the body excites, because the dispersion relation has no length in it. The short strokes are the crests, which lie along the beams rather than across them: the phase advances perpendicular to the energy, and the two are exactly at right angles. Raise the frequency and the cross closes towards the vertical; reach ω = N and it shuts entirely, because nothing above the buoyancy frequency propagates.

The number that stops the mixing

A fluid whose density falls with height resists being stirred, and the resistance has a threshold at exactly one quarter, from an energy balance with no fluid mechanics in it. The waves such a fluid carries are stranger still — their frequency decides the direction they travel in and says nothing about their wavelength.

8 figures

The plateau that is the log law. y⁺ du⁺/dy⁺ across a channel, at five Reynolds numbers. Millikan's argument says this quantity must be constant wherever neither the viscous length nor the channel width may appear, and its value there is 1/κ. At Re_τ = 180 there is no flat part at all; at Re_τ = 100,000 it is flat over 2.16 decades and gives κ = 0.4120. The log law is a statement about a limit, and this is the picture of the flow approaching it.

The layer with no length in it

The logarithm in a turbulent wall profile does not come from any model of turbulence. It comes from a region where neither of the flow's two lengths is allowed to appear, and where a velocity gradient therefore has nothing to depend on but the distance to the wall. The constant in it has never been derived from anything.

8 figures

Where the first grid point may go. The error in the friction a wall treatment infers, against the height of the first grid point, at Re_τ = 20,000. The velocity fed to each treatment is the closure's own, so what is plotted is the modelling of the boundary condition with nothing else in it. The log-law function is exact between y⁺ 30 and 10261 and is 64 per cent wrong at y⁺ = 1; the sublayer treatment is exact below y⁺ = 5 and hopeless above it; and the blend that most codes ship is within a few per cent everywhere and exact nowhere.

What a code says to a wall

A calculation that cannot afford to resolve the viscous sublayer has to tell the wall something else instead, and what it tells it is the law of the wall — an asymptotic result, applied at one grid point, on the assumption that the point lies in a region the calculation has not checked exists. Where it does, the answer is exact. Where it does not, the friction is out by tens of per cent, and refining the grid makes it worse.

8 figures

One spectrum, two fields. Two one-dimensional fields built from the same amplitudes and different phases. Their energy spectra are identical to the last bit, their two-point correlations agree to 2e-15, their second-order structure functions are the same function — and no measurement of either kind can tell them apart. Everything that distinguishes them is in the phases, which is where the cascade lives.

The moment a spectrum cannot hold

A spectrum and a two-point correlation are the same object, transformed, so everything one of them records the other records too. Give a field the exact Kolmogorov amplitudes and independent phases and every second-order measurement comes out right — while the cascade, which lives in the phases, is not there at all.

8 figures

The one exact law, and where viscosity takes it back. The two terms of the Kármán–Howarth relation against separation, measured in Kolmogorov lengths. The four-fifths term rises linearly with r and is the whole of the law at large separation; the viscous term, 6ν dS₂/dr, falls as r^(−1/3) and takes over below 5.64η. Nothing in the calculation was told what η is: the crossing is at the same multiple of it at every viscosity tried, which is what makes the dissipation scale the lower end of the inertial range rather than a separate assumption.

The one exact result

Almost nothing in turbulence follows from the equations without a model in it. One thing does — Kolmogorov's four-fifths law, which fixes the third moment of the velocity differences at −(4/5)εr with no adjustable constant anywhere in it. The companion two-thirds law is not exact, and the 4.02 everybody quotes in it turns out to be a gamma function.

7 figures

Two things moving by a million, and their product standing still. Viscosity, the squared velocity gradient at the dissipation scale, and their product, across six decades of Reynolds number at a fixed large-scale flow. The viscosity falls by a factor of 1e+6; the squared gradient rises by exactly the same factor, because η falls as Re^(−3/4) and u_η as Re^(−1/4); and the dissipation ν(u_η/η)² does not move at all. That is the dissipation anomaly stated as arithmetic: the limit of the dissipation as viscosity vanishes is not the value it takes when viscosity is zero.

The limit that is not the value

Dissipation is viscosity times the square of a velocity gradient, so it ought to vanish as the viscosity does. It does not. The gradient rises by exactly the factor the viscosity falls by, the product stands still, and a fluid with no viscosity at all would dissipate nothing — which is why the limit and the value are different numbers.

8 figures

Ballistic first, diffusive later. The mean square displacement of a parcel carried by a fluctuating velocity, from Taylor's 1921 integral with an exponential correlation of time scale 1. Below the correlation time it follows the straight-line law u²t² exactly — the parcel has not yet changed its mind — and above it the curve joins the diffusion law 2u²T·t, offset by the head start the ballistic phase gave it. The eddy diffusivity is u²T = 1.000, and it is a property of the correlation rather than of any equation of motion.

How far a parcel gets

Turbulent transport is one integral. A parcel carried by a fluctuating velocity goes in a straight line while it still remembers its own motion and performs a random walk once it has forgotten, and the crossover is the correlation time — so an eddy diffusivity is not a property a flow has, it is the limit of a measurement that has run for long enough.

7 figures

Most of the fluctuation is the switching. What a hot wire at the edge of a shear layer records, taken apart. The conditional intensity — the fluctuation inside the turbulent fluid — is flat at 0.16 by construction. The measured intensity peaks 20 per cent above it, and the excess is the third curve: the variance of a signal that keeps switching between two mean velocities, which peaks where the switching is most even and is not turbulence at all. A model calibrated against the measured curve is being fitted to an artefact of averaging.

Turbulent some of the time

At the edge of a jet or a wake a probe is inside turbulent fluid for part of the time and in perfectly smooth flow for the rest, and an ordinary time average mixes the two. Most of the fluctuation it records there is not turbulence at all — it is the switching between two states, and it peaks where the switching is most even rather than where the turbulence is strongest.

8 figures

Three thresholds, and none of them is one. The neutral curves for a layer heated from below, computed by taking the smallest eigenvalue of the marginal-stability operator at each horizontal wavenumber. Every curve diverges at both ends — a cell wider than the layer has to carry heat sideways for ever, a narrower one loses it to conduction — so each has a minimum, and that minimum is the critical Rayleigh number. Two free surfaces give 657.5, one rigid and one free 1100.7, two rigid walls 1707.8. Nothing but the boundary condition differs, and it carries a factor of 2.6.

The threshold the walls decide

A layer heated from below convects at a Rayleigh number of 1707.762, and nothing whatever happens at one. The free–free case has a closed form and the two that do not differ from it by a factor of 2.6 — produced by nothing but what the top and bottom surfaces are permitted to do.

8 figures

Five numbers, one name

The Richardson number has a threshold at a quarter, and the quarter belongs to one of the five quantities that go by the name. On a single tanh shear layer they run from J to seventeen J, and the largest of them grows without limit as the measurement is extended further from the layer.

8 figures