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

The thread: One number decides the regime — page 15

Page 15 of 34, continuing through the 305 essays this motif runs through.

305 essays carry this thread — page 15 of 34.

The roughness function, and the asymptote in which the viscosity has gone. The whole effect of a rough wall on a turbulent boundary layer is one number: the downward shift of the logarithmic profile. It vanishes on a smooth wall, rises through a transitional band, and becomes (1/kappa)ln(k+) + B − 8.5 — at which point substituting it back leaves u+ = (1/kappa)ln(y/k) + 8.5, with the fluid's own length gone from the answer entirely. Transition and turbulence

A second length at the wall

The logarithm in a turbulent wall profile exists because a region of the flow is not allowed to know about any length except the distance to the wall. Roughen the surface and there is one it does know about, which belongs neither to the fluid nor to the flow — and the slope does not change at all.

 The pressure drop stops rising at 0.213 m/s. The pressure drop across a bed of 500 µm sand, against the velocity through it, in units of the fluidisation velocity. The rising branch is Ergun's resistance and the flat one is the bed's buoyant weight, which the flow cannot exceed however hard it is pushed: past the corner the bed expands rather than resisting more. That flat line is the reason fluidisation is unmistakable in practice — the corner is a crossing of two curves rather than a gradual departure, and it can be read off a gauge. Fluids at work

The bed that weighs itself

Blow hard enough through a pile of sand and the pressure drop stops rising. It cannot rise — a control volume round the bed says the drop can never exceed the buoyant weight of the solid in it, and at the velocity where the two meet the bed stops being a structure and starts being a fluid.

 The one number that really is one. Three quantities against the Froude number. The upper line is the speed of a surface wave travelling downstream and the lower one the speed of the same wave travelling upstream, both in units of the wave speed itself; the second changes sign at Fr = 1 and not near it. That sign change is not a comparison of two term sizes going through unity — it is the moment a signal stops being able to reach upstream at all, so the equations change from elliptic to hyperbolic and the flow stops knowing what is ahead of it. The specific energy, drawn beneath, has its minimum at the same place, and for the same reason. Regimes and numbers

The number that really is one

Almost every threshold in this subject sits somewhere other than where its dimensionless group is one. The Froude number does not. At Fr = 1 a disturbance stops being able to travel upstream, the specific energy is least and the equations change type — three statements, one number, and no tolerance anywhere in it.

 Seven fluids in one pipe at one pressure gradient. Velocity profiles of power-law fluids in a round pipe, all at the same pressure gradient and the same consistency, scaled to the fastest. A shear-thinning fluid (n below one) is flatter in the middle and steeper at the wall; a shear-thickening one is the reverse. The flattening is often called plug-like, which invites the reading that the fluid is moving more freely — what has actually happened is that all the shear has been pushed into a thin annulus at the wall, which is the expensive place to put it. Viscosity

A viscosity that depends on the question

Blood, paint, molten polymer and drilling mud have no viscosity. They have a relation between stress and strain rate that is not proportional, so the ratio of the two depends on how hard they are being sheared — and an instrument that reports one number is reporting a property of itself.

 The same flow, from two different physics. Solid lines: the depth-averaged flow between two plates a small distance apart, with an obstacle standing between them. Dashed: the ideal-flow solution for the same obstacle. They are the same field to a part in ten billion, because averaging Stokes flow across a narrow gap gives a velocity that is the gradient of a harmonic potential. The cell has no inertia at all, which is the one hypothesis the ideal theory cannot do without. Ideal flow

The exact theory, drawn by viscosity

Two flat plates a millimetre apart, syrup between them, an obstacle in the gap. The Reynolds number is a hundredth, inertia is absent, and the streamline pattern is the potential flow past that obstacle — exactly, to a part in ten billion. The one hypothesis ideal flow cannot do without is the one this flow most conspicuously breaks.

 The shock radius against time, from an equation that was given no exponent. The thin-shell energy balance integrated forward from a small initial radius, on logarithmic axes. The two-fifths power is not put in: the ordinary differential equation is Ṙ = √(E/AρR³), and the straight line is what it does. The fitted slope is 0.39983 and the fitted prefactor is 0.90721 against a closed form of 0.90702 — the small residuals being the integration's memory of where it started, which the similarity solution has no equivalent of. Compressible flow

A radius that gives the energy away

Four quantities, three dimensions, one group. The radius of a strong blast must be a constant times (Et²/ρ)¹⁄⁵, and nothing about the device, the chemistry or the initial size can appear. The exponent is free and the constant is not.

 One rate per moment, and none of them the same. lambda_p = ln<l^p>/(p t) against p. As p goes to zero it is the Lyapunov exponent, the rate of the typical element; at p = 1 it is the rate of the average length, which is nearly twice as large. If ln l were exactly Gaussian this would be a straight line with the Lyapunov exponent as its intercept, and the departure from that line is the same multifractality the velocity increments have. Flows and fields

The stretching rate that is not one number

A material line in a flow gets longer, and there is a theorem saying its length grows at a definite exponential rate. There is also a rate at which the average length grows, and it is nearly twice as large — and a different rate for every moment of the distribution.

 Two decay laws from two invariants, and nothing in the equations to choose. The energy of a decaying turbulence against time, integrated from dK/dt = −A K^(3/2)/l with the large scales conserving u² l³ in one case and u² l⁵ in the other. The exponents come out at 1.1997 and 1.4282 against the closed forms 6/5 and 10/7. Which invariant holds is decided by the shape of the spectrum at the very largest scales, at the moment the stirring stops. Transition and turbulence

What decay never forgets

Stir a box of fluid and stop. The turbulence decays, at a rate with no viscosity in it — so the rate cannot come from the fluid. It comes from an invariant of the very largest scales, fixed at the moment the stirring stops, and never revisited.

 The source falls 6 m and the crown pressure does not move. The pressure at the crown of a draining siphon, against time, as the source level falls from the top of the tank to the end of the run, a drop of 6 m. It is flat to 1.5e-11 pascals — not nearly flat, exactly flat, because the two effects of a falling source cancel identically. Losing a metre of level shrinks the drop, which slows the flow and raises the crown pressure by half a velocity head; and it grows the rise, which lowers the crown pressure by ρg per metre. Those are the same number. So a siphon that starts will not break as it drains, however far the level falls, and the run ended because the level reached the outlet instead. What is taught wrongly

The siphon that does not break

A draining reservoir shrinks the drop and grows the rise at the same time, and the siphon's own coupling — a metre of extra drop costs a metre of hump — says a siphon should break as it empties. It does not. The two effects cancel exactly, and the crown pressure of a draining siphon is a constant that does not contain the source level at all.

All themes