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

Every essay — page 34

Page 34 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.

Two lifetimes, crossing. The mean time for a turbulent puff to decay and the mean time for it to split into two, against Reynolds number, on a logarithmic axis spanning thirty orders of magnitude. Below the crossing puffs die faster than they multiply; above it they multiply faster than they die, and the flow stays turbulent.

A puff that does not know how old it is

A patch of turbulence in a pipe below the critical Reynolds number dies at random, and its chance of dying in the next second does not depend on how long it has already lasted. The flow that contains it has a memory anyway, because the patches multiply — and where multiplying overtakes dying is a Reynolds number.

8 figures The layer that grows from a change of surface. The internal boundary layer's height against distance downwind of a change in roughness, with the sublayer inside it that is genuinely in equilibrium with the new surface. The layer grows as the fetch to the four-fifths power and the equilibrium sublayer is a tenth of it.

How far downwind a surface is remembered

Walk from a field into a wood and the wind ten metres above your head is still the field's wind. It takes about a kilometre of trees before a ten-metre measurement is measuring the trees — a hundred times the height it is made at, and a great deal more than most masts are given.

8 figures The production jumps and the dissipation does not. Production and dissipation against time, through a step change in the strain rate. The production follows the strain immediately — it is the strain squared times an eddy viscosity — and the dissipation moves by less than one per cent at the instant of the step, because it is set by a cascade that has not been told yet.

A dissipation that lags its production

Change the strain rate on a patch of turbulence and the production of energy follows instantly — it is the strain squared. The dissipation moves by less than one per cent, because it is the far end of a cascade that has not been told yet, and the two are out of balance by a factor of six for the next turnover.

8 figures The stress a closure predicts, and the stress there is. The Reynolds-stress anisotropy through a step change in the strain rate, against what an eddy viscosity gives — which is the equilibrium value at every instant. The real stress takes about a turnover to get there, and during that turnover the closure is wrong by up to sixty per cent.

A closure with no memory at all

An eddy viscosity says the Reynolds stress is the mean strain rate times a number, now. The stress it is standing in for takes a turnover to arrive, so the closure is the zero-frequency limit of a response that has a lag in it — and the curve it is the limit of is the same shape as an aerofoil's lift deficiency.

8 figures How far apart two points can be and still be correlated. The correlation between the logarithm of the dissipation at two points, against how far apart they are in units of the smallest scale, over four decades. It falls as a ratio of logarithms — so it is still a quarter at a thousand smallest scales, and reaches a half only at a hundred.

A dissipation correlated across every scale

The dissipation is supposed to be the most local quantity in turbulence — a thing happening at the smallest eddies, everywhere and independently. A multiplicative cascade makes its logarithm correlated over a distance that is a ratio of logarithms, so two points a thousand smallest scales apart still agree a quarter of the time.

8 figures Two wakes with one drag. The two initial velocity deficits: a slab, which is roughly what a bluff body leaves, and a pair of separated lobes, which is roughly what a body with a jet through the middle of it leaves. Their integrals are identical, so the two bodies have exactly the same drag.

A wake that keeps the drag and forgets the body

Two very different wakes with the same momentum deficit converge to the same profile, because the deficit is conserved and everything else diffuses away. The convergence is a power law rather than an exponential, so it takes two hundred widths for twenty per cent agreement and nine hundred for five.

8 figures Three modes carry heat up to a ceiling of three; the rolls they were cut from keep going. The Nusselt number — heat carried across the layer over what conduction alone would carry — against r, the Rayleigh number over its critical value, for Lorenz's three-mode truncation, 1 + 2(r − 1)/r, and for steady rolls at the same wavenumber computed with 6 and with 42 temperature modes. At r = 2, r = 5 and r = 30 Lorenz gives 2.000, 2.600 and 2.933; the 42-mode rolls give 2.143, 3.323 and 5.970. Lorenz's value can never exceed three whatever the Rayleigh number; the rolls' keeps rising. The ceiling is not in the convection. It is in the three modes, which have only one way to thin the thermal layers, and half of it is used by the time the layer is twice past onset.

The truncation that cannot carry three times the heat

Lorenz's three modes give a convecting layer's heat flux in one line — one plus twice (r − 1) over r — and it can never reach three times what conduction carries. The same rolls computed with forty-two modes agree with that line exactly at onset, carry 7.1 per cent more heat at twice the critical Rayleigh number, and twice as much at thirty times it. The ceiling is not in the convection; it is in having one sine to draw the temperature with.

7 figures The same wavelength drawn as rolls and as hexagons. Plan views of a convecting layer with one critical wavelength, drawn from the amplitude equations' two stable states. On the left, rolls: a single set of parallel bands, rising fluid along one set of lines and sinking along the next. On the right, hexagons: three sets of rolls at 120° to each other with equal amplitudes, whose sum has its maxima on a triangular lattice with spacing 2/√3 of the wavelength, each maximum at the centre of a hexagonal cell. At ε = 0.0250, inside the window, both are stable: rolls with amplitude 0.158 and hexagons with 0.081 in each of their three rolls. A hexagon is not a different kind of cell; it is three roll patterns that the quadratic term lets reinforce one another.

Hexagons remember how the heat was turned up

A layer heated from below convects in rolls, unless its top and bottom are not mirror images of each other. Then three sets of rolls at 120° can feed one another through a term the symmetry used to forbid, hexagonal cells appear before the layer is formally unstable, and there is a range of heating in which rolls and hexagons are both stable — so the pattern a layer shows depends on whether the heat was turned up or down to get there.

7 figures A band of growing waves that opens at 5772 and narrows as the viscosity goes. The wavenumbers at which a two-dimensional wave on plane Poiseuille flow neither grows nor decays, against the Reynolds number on a logarithmic axis. Inside the tongue waves grow; outside they decay. The tongue's tip is the critical point. Both edges slope downward and towards each other in wavenumber as the Reynolds number rises, so the band of unstable waves shrinks towards long waves — the direction in which the inviscid problem, which has no growing wave at all, is reached.

The profile Rayleigh cleared and viscosity did not

Flow between two plates has no inflection point, so without viscosity no wave on it can grow. With viscosity one does, above a Reynolds number of 5772. Taking the viscosity away again slows that wave and narrows the band it grows in, because the stress that feeds it is made by viscosity in the first place.

7 figures Five spectra, five exponents, one linear equation. The energy of a decaying turbulence after the nonlinear term has stopped mattering, computed by integrating the exact modal solution E(k,0)exp(−2 nu k² t) at five different shapes of the spectrum at the origin. Each is a straight line on these axes and no two have the same slope: the exponent is (m+1)/2, where k^m is the spectrum's behaviour at wavenumbers smaller than any eddy. The 5/2 that is quoted as the final period's universal exponent is the m = 4 line and one of five.

Universal, and one of five

A turbulence that has run its Reynolds number down stops being turbulent, the equations go linear, and the decay picks up a new exponent. That exponent is quoted everywhere as 5/2 and as universal. It is neither: it is the same corner of the same spectrum deciding the answer a second time.

8 figures The coefficient that was a constant, against the number it is said not to depend on. The dissipation coefficient Cε = eps·l/u³ along two decays, plotted against the Taylor-scale Reynolds number they pass through. One is flat because it was put in flat; the other falls as the reciprocal of the Reynolds number, which is what is measured in the near field of a grid. Neither line is a derivation. What is exact is the relation between them, Cε = 15(ℓ/λ)/Reλ, which is a rearrangement of two definitions and holds along both curves to 5·10⁻¹⁶.

The constant that travels

Every decay law in the subject rests on the dissipation being some constant times u³ over a length. The constant is not one. Letting it move the way grid measurements say it moves changes the decay exponent by a quarter — and lands one of the answers five per cent from another that is entirely different physics.

8 figures Four over the dimension, and three dimensions is where the three comes from. The constant in front of the exact law, against the number of dimensions the flow lives in. Both exact results — Yaglom's for a scalar and the velocity's law for the mixed third moment — have this same constant, because both come from the same statement: an isotropic radial flux in separation space whose divergence is a constant sink. Integrating that divergence gives 4Q r/d and nothing else. The four-thirds everybody quotes is four over three, and the three is the space rather than anything about turbulence. The dots are the quadrature, which agrees with the closed form to 2·10⁻⁹.

The fraction that is really four thirds

Turbulence has two exact results, not one. The second is about a scalar carried by the flow, its constant is four thirds rather than four fifths, and the difference between the two fractions has nothing in it about turbulence at all — it is the price of writing a three-component object in terms of one component.

9 figures