Disclaimer.
Peeter’s lecture notes from class. May not be entirely coherent.
Review. Laminar boundary layer theory.
In the boundary layer we found
- Continuity equation
momentum equation
momentum equation
In the inviscid region is a constant in
This will be approximately true in the boundary layer too as illustrated in figure (1).
Starting with
we were able to show that inviscid irrotational incompressible flows are governed by Bernoulli’s equation
In the absence of body forces (or constant potentials), we have
so that our boundary layer equations are
\begin{subequations}
\end{subequations}
With boundary conditions
Fluid flow over a flat plate (Blasius problem).
Define a similarity variable
Suppose we want
Since we have
or
We can make the transformation
We can introduce stream functions
We can check that this satisfies the continuity equation since we have
Now introduce a similarity variable
Note that we’ve also suddenly assumed that (a constant, which will also kill the
term in the N-S equation). This isn’t really justified by anything we’ve done so far, but asking about this in class, it was stated that this is a restriction for this formulation of the Blasius problem.
Also note that this last step requires:
This at least makes sense dimensionally since we have , but where did this definition of
come from?
In [] it is mentioned that this is a result of the scaling argument. We did have some scaling arguments that included in the expressions from last lecture, one of which was 2.7
but that doesn’t obviously give us 3.20?
Ah. We argued that
and that the larger of the viscous terms was
If we require that these are the same order of magnitude, as argued in section 8.3 of [2], then we find 3.21.
Regardless, given this change of variables, we can apparently compute
Our boundary conditions are
latex \eta = 0$} \\ f’ = 1 & \quad \mbox{
} \\ \end{array}\end{aligned} \hspace{\stretch{1}}(3.25)$
Deriving the equation of motion.
Attempting to derive 3.24 using the definitions above gets a bit messy. It’s messy enough that I mistakenly thought that we couldn’t possible arrive at a differential equation that has a plain old (non-derivative) in it as in 3.24 above. The algebra involved in taking the derivatives got the better of me. This derivation is treated a different way in [2]. For the purpose of completeness (and because that derivation also leaves out some details), lets do this from start to finish with all the gory details, but following the outline provided in the text.
Instead of pre-determining the form of the similarity variable exactly, we can state it in terms of an unknown and to be determined function of position writing
We still introduce stream our stream functions 3.17, but require that our horizontal velocity component is only a function of our similarity variable
where is to be determined, and is scaled by our characteristic velocity
. Observe that, as above, we are assuming that
, a constant (which also kills off the
term in the Navier-Stokes equation.) Given this form of
, we note that
so that
It’s argued in the text that we also want to be a streamline, so that
implying that
. I don’t honestly follow the rational for that, but it’s certainly convenient to set
, so lets do so and see where things go. With
Observe that is necessarily zero with this definition. We can now write
This is like what we had in class, with the exception that instead of a constant relating and
we also have a function of
. That’s exactly what we need so that we can end up with both
and derivatives of
in our Navier-Stokes equation.
Now let’s do the mechanical bits, computing all the derivatives. We can compute to start with
We had initially , but
, so we’ve now got both
and
specified in terms of
and
and their derivatives
We’ve got a bunch of the derivatives that we have to compute
and
and
Our component of Navier-Stokes now takes the form
or (assuming )
Now, it we wish (to make this equation as easy to solve as possible), we can integrate to find the required form of
. This gives
It’s argued that we expect
to become singular at , so we should set
. This leaves us with
\begin{subequations}
\end{subequations}
and boundary value conditions
\begin{subequations}
\end{subequations}
where 3.38b follows from and 3.37d, and 3.38c follows from the fact that
tends to
.
Numeric solution.
We can solve this numerically and find solutions that look like figure (2).
This is the Blasius solution to the problem of fluid flow over a flat plate.
Singular perturbation theory.
In the boundary layer analysis we’ve assumed that our inertial term and viscous terms were of the same order of magnitude. Lets examine the validity of this assumption
or
or
finally
If we have
and
then
when .
(this is the whole reason that we were able to do the previous analysis).
Our EOM is
with
as
performing a non-dimensionalization we have
or
to force , we can write
so that as we have
.
With a very small number modifying the highest degree partial term, we have a class of differential equations that doesn’t end up converging should we attempt a standard perturbation treatment. An example that is analogous is the differential equation
where and
. The exact solution of this ill conditioned differential equation is
This is illustrated in figure (3).
Study of this class of problems is called \textit{Singular perturbation theory}.
When we have approximately
but when ,
we have approximately
References
[1] Wikipedia. Blasius boundary layer — wikipedia, the free encyclopedia [online]. 2012. [Online; accessed 28-March-2012]. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Blasius_boundary_layer&oldid=480776115.
[2] D.J. Acheson. Elementary fluid dynamics. Oxford University Press, USA, 1990.
