DOI 10.1007/s1066500690964
ORI GI NAL PAPER
Nonlinear critical layers in the boundary layer
on a rotating disk
J. S. B. Gajjar
Received: 5 May 2006 / Accepted: 11 September 2006 / Published online: 10 November 2006
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006
Abstract The work of Gregory, Stuart and Walker (1955, Proc R Soc Ser A 406:93–106) and Hall (1986,
Phil Trans R Soc London Ser A 248:155–199) is extended to include nonlinear effects for the stationary
crossﬂowvortex. It is shown that amplitudedependent neutral modes are described by a forced Haberman
equation. The corrections to the neutral wavenumbers and waveangles are derived and it is suggested that
the nonlinear neutral modes can have wavenumbers decreased by an O(1) amount as compared to linear
theory.
Keywords Hydrodynamic stability · Rotating disk ﬂow · Crossﬂow · Nonlinear
1 Introduction
In one of the ﬁrst detailed experimental and theoretical investigations of threedimensional boundarylayer
stability, Gregory, Stuart and Walker [1] (hereafter referred to as GSW), highlighted the importance of the
crossﬂow mechanism and its relevance to the stationary mode observed in rotatingdisk ﬂow. Crossﬂow
instabilities are characteristic of a fully threedimensional boundarylayer ﬂow such as that occurring on
a swept wing. The basic mechanism involved is that, in appropriate ﬂow directions, the effective velocity
proﬁle appears to be inﬂexional, and hence prone to inﬂexional instability. One particular proﬁle is such
that the point of inﬂexion coincides with the point of zero velocity, thus giving rise to neutral disturbances
with zero phase speed, and commonly termed the stationary mode.
The paper by GSW [1] outlined the basic inviscid theory for the stationary mode. Neutral curves cal
culated in Malik [2] for the stationary mode showed that, for large Reynolds number, the neutral curve
had two distinct branches, one the upperbranch corresponding to the inviscid mode of GSW, and another
which was termed the lowerbranch mode. Hall [3], using asymptotic methods, obtained the correction
terms to the inviscid mode of GSW and showed also how the lowerbranch mode of [2] could be identiﬁed
with wall modes.
J. S. B. Gajjar (B)
School of Mathematics, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK
email: j.gajjar@manchester.ac.uk
206 J Eng Math (2007) 57:205–217
An asymptotic description of the linear and nonlinear properties of nonstationary modes is given in
[4]. In [5], the properties of unsteady nonlinear critical layers are used to study the evolution of growing
modes.
Our aim in this paper is to extend the work by GSW and that of [3] to include nonlinear effects for the
upperbranch stationary mode. Nonlinear calculations for the lowerbranch mode are given in [6].
It is clear fromthe work of [3] (hereafter referred to as I), that the importance of the nonlinear terms will
be enhanced in the critical layer. The structure of the solution given in [3] is very similar to that occurring in
twodimensional boundarylayer ﬂows. The extension to include nonlinear effects is therefore very similar
to the studies of nonlinear critical layers in [7–12]. In the canonical problem, however, there are differences.
The governing equation here turns out to be a forced Haberman equation, see [7], the forcing arising from
the Coriolis terms. The other difference from twodimensional ﬂows is the important role played by the
meanﬂow interaction terms. As in I, the corrections to the wavenumber and waveangle stem from a
balancing of the walllayer and criticallayer phase shifts. In the Haberman stage these corrections are
amplitudedependent. With increased nonlinearity, the criticallayer phase shift approaches zero and the
structure of the modes is similar to that discussed in [8] for twodimensional ﬂows. In this limit it is found
that there are O(1) corrections to the wavenumber and waveangle. A signiﬁcant result here is that there
is a crossover from the inﬂexional proﬁle to one in which U
B
is nonzero at the critical layer. Here U
B
(y)
is the effective crossﬂow proﬁle.
In Sect. 2 we discuss brieﬂy the criticallayer details for the structure given in [3]. The nonlinear theory
is described in Sect. 3. Throughout this work the Reynolds number R is taken to be large.
2 Basic equations and linear theory
Consider a disk, located at z = 0, which rotates about the zaxis with angular velocity . With axes rotating
with the disk, the Navier–Stokes and continuity equations, suitably nondimensionalised, are:
u.∇u +2(
ˆ
k ×u) −2r ˆ r = −∇p +
1
R
∇
2
u, (1)
∇.u = 0. (2)
Here u = (u, v, w) are the velocity components in cylindrical polar coordinates (r, θ, z) and (ˆ r,
ˆ
θ,
ˆ
k) are
the corresponding unit vectors in the respective coordinate directions. Also R =
2
l/ν is the Reynolds
number, l is some reference lengthscale, and ν is the kinematic viscosity of the ﬂuid.
The basic steady ﬂow is given by the von Kármán [13] solution as,
u = U
B
= (r ¯ u(ζ ), r¯ v(ζ ), R
−
1
2
¯ w(ζ )),
where z = R
−
1
2
ζ =
3
ζ , = R
−
1
6
and ¯ u, ¯ v, ¯ w satisfy,
¯ u
2
−(¯ v +1)
2
+ ¯ u
¯ w − ¯ u
= 0,
2¯ u(¯ v +1) + ¯ v
¯ w − ¯ v
= 0,
2¯ u + ¯ w
= 0.
Primes above denote differentiation with respect to ζ . The boundary conditions on U
B
are
¯ u = 0, ¯ v = 0, ¯ w = 0, at ζ = 0,
¯ u →0, ¯ v →−1 as ζ →∞.
J Eng Math (2007) 57:205–217 207
2.1 Linear theory
Following GSW and I, we perturb the basic ﬂow by writing
(u, p) = (U
B
, p
B
) +δ(U, V, W, P) . . . , (3)
where δ 1 is the inﬁnitesimal disturbance size and p
B
denotes the basic pressure. For linear theory to
hold, the requirement that δ O(
2
) is needed to ensure that nonlinear balances in the criticallayer
region remain negligible; see later. The disturbance quantities (U, V, W, P) are now expressed as
U = U
0
cos x +U
1
+· · · ,
V = V
0
cos x +V
1
+· · · ,
W = W
0
sin x +W
1
+· · · ,
P = P
0
cos x +P
1
+· · · , (4)
where, as in I, we have introduced xvariations such that
∂
∂r
=
−3
(α
0
+α
1
+· · · )
∂
∂x
+
∂
∂r
,
∂
∂θ
=
−3
(m
0
+m
1
+· · · )
∂
∂x
.
Here α = α
0
+ α
1
+ · · · , m/r = (m
0
+ m
1
+ · · · )/r are the scaled wavenumbers in the ˆ r,
ˆ
θ directions,
respectively. The xvariable here accounts for fast variations in the direction of propagation of the wave
which makes an angle tan
−1
(β/rα) with the radial direction. The disturbance eigenfunctions U
0
, V
0
, W
0
, P
0
all depend on ζ (as well as r), but not on x. In later sections the explicit dependence on r is suppressed.
The main objective of our work is to discuss how the neutral wavenumbers and waveangles change with
amplitude of the disturbance.
Substitution of (4) in the Navier–Stokes and continuity equations yields at leading order,
−U
0B
U
0
+rW
0
¯ u
= α
0
P
0
,
−U
0B
V
0
+rW
0
¯ v
=
m
0
r
P
0
,
−U
0B
W
0
= −P
0
,
−U
00
+W
0
= 0,
(5)
where primes denote differentiation with respect to ζ , and we have deﬁned U
nB
= rα
n
¯ u + m
n
¯ v and
U
nk
= α
n
U
k
+(m
n
/r)V
k
. Thus U
0B
can be regarded as the ‘effective’ or crossﬂow velocity. Manipulation
of (5) gives the Rayleigh equation for W
0
, namely:
U
0B
[W
0
−γ
2
0
W
0
] −U
0B
W
0
= 0, (6a)
where γ
2
0
= α
2
0
+(m
2
0
/r) is the effective wavenumber.
We are interested in stationary modes, so following GSW and I, we choose α
0
, m
0
such that
U
0B
= U
0B
= 0 at ζ =
¯
ζ . (6b)
The equation for W
0
, (6a) together with (6b) and the boundary conditions
W
0
= 0 at ζ = 0, ∞, (6c)
208 J Eng Math (2007) 57:205–217
speciﬁes an eigenvalue problem for determining γ
0
. The solution is given in I and it is noted that
γ
0
= 1.16, α
0
/m
0
= 4.26/r,
¯
ζ = 1.46.
The behaviour of the eigenfunctions locally near ζ =
¯
ζ are required in the subsequent analysis and it is
easily deduced that
U
0
∼ −
[α
0
P
0
−rW
0
¯ u
]
B
01
(ζ −
¯
ζ )
+· · · , (7a)
V
0
∼ −
[(m
0
/r)P
0
−rW
0
¯ v
]
B
01
(ζ −
¯
ζ )
+· · · , (7b)
as ζ →
¯
ζ . The constants B
jk
are deﬁned by
B
jk
= rα
j
a
ku
+m
j
a
kv
,
where
a
ku
=
_
d
k
¯ u
dζ
k
_
ζ =
¯
ζ
, a
kv
=
_
d
k
¯ v
dζ
k
_
ζ =
¯
ζ
.
Note that, whereas U
0
, V
0
are singular at the critical layer, W
0
and U
00
are regular at ζ =
¯
ζ . From (6b),
B
00
= B
02
= 0. The eigenfunction W
0
is normalised such that W
0
(ζ = 0) = 1.
The viscous terms in the full equations are needed to smooth out the singularities at the critical level
ζ =
¯
ζ and a balance of inertial and viscous terms shows that the thickness of the critical layer is O().
At the next order in the inviscid region, substituting (4) in the Navier–Stokes equations and writing
W
1
= W
1s
(ζ ) sin x +W
1c
(ζ ) cos x,
we ﬁnd that W
1c
satisﬁes the same equation as W
0
. However, W
1s
satisﬁes
U
0B
[W
1s
−γ
2
0
W
1s
] −U
0B
W
1s
= 2U
0B
(α
0
α
1
+m
0
m
1
)W
0
+
_
α
1
−
m
1
α
0
m
0
_
r
_
¯ u
−
U
0B
¯ u
U
0B
_
W
0
. (8)
The second term on the righthand side of (8) gives a logarithmic singularity for W
1s
with the behaviour
W
1s
∼ r
(m
0
α
1
−m
1
α
0
)(B
01
a
2u
−B
03
a
0u
)
m
0
B
2
01
(ζ −
¯
ζ )
(W
0
)
ζ =
¯
ζ
, (9)
as ζ →
¯
ζ +. The continuation below the critical layer (ζ <
¯
ζ ), see Sect. 3.1 below, gives the wellknown
phase jump
W
1
∼ k
0
(ζ −
¯
ζ ) log(ζ −
¯
ζ ) sin x ζ >
¯
ζ,
W
1
∼ k
0
(ζ −
¯
ζ )[log(ζ −
¯
ζ ) sin x +π cos x] ζ <
¯
ζ,
where k
0
is the coefﬁcient of (ζ −
¯
ζ )
−1
in (9). Hence
[W
1c
]
+
−
= k
0
π, [W
1s
]
+
−
= 0, (10)
with []
+
−
denoting the jump across ζ =
¯
ζ .
J Eng Math (2007) 57:205–217 209
Before considering the critical layer, the walllayer problem, see I, where ζ =
4
ξ and
U =
¯
U
0
+· · · , V =
¯
V
0
+· · · , W =
¯
W
0
+· · · , (11)
shows that W
0
satisﬁes a forced Airy equation and, in particular, the solution properties imply that
W
0
∼
ξλ
r
sin x −
3Ai
(0)
λ
1
3
cos(x +π/3) as ξ 1. (12)
Here we have deﬁned λ(> 0) by λ = α
0
¯ u
(0) +(m
0
/r)¯ v
(0). The phaseshift given by (10) matches with the
walllayer phase shift in (12) and gives rise to the eigenrelations. In fact, a solvability condition on W
1
in
the inviscid region shows that
[W
1c
W
0
−W
1c
W
0
]
∞
+
+[W
1c
W
0
−W
1c
W
0
]
−
0
= 0, (13a)
[W
1s
W
0
−W
1s
W
0
]
∞
+
+[W
1s
W
0
−W
1s
W
0
]
−
0
= 2
_
α
0
α
1
+
m
0
m
1
r
2
_
_
∞
0
W
2
0
dζ
+rm
0
_
α
1
m
0
−
m
1
α
0
m
2
0
_
_
−
∞
0
W
2
0
_
¯ u
U
0B
−U
0B
¯ u
U
2
0B
_
dζ . (13b)
Using (10), (12) and evaluating (13a), we obtain
(W
2
0
)(
¯
ζ )r
_
α
1
−
m
1
α
0
m
0
__
a
2u
−
B
03
a
0u
B
01
_
π
B
01
=
3Ai
(0)
2λ
1
3
. (14)
Similarly, (13b) gives
3
√
3Ai
(0)
2λ
1
3
= 2
_
α
0
α
1
+
m
0
m
1
r
2
_
_
∞
0
W
2
0
dζ
+
_
α
1
m
0
−
α
0
m
1
m
2
0
_
rm
0
_
−
∞
0
W
2
0
_
¯ u
U
0B
−U
0B
¯ u
U
2
0B
_
dζ . (15)
The relations (14, 15) are equivalent to the relations derived by Hall [3]. We note that the jump across the
critical layer ﬁxes the correction to the waveangle, and the conditions on W
1s
determine the correction to
the wavenumber.
Our calculations show that
I
1
=
_
∞
0
W
2
0
dζ = 0.091, I
2
=
_
−
∞
0
W
2
0
_
¯ u
U
0B
−U
0B
¯ u
U
2
0B
_
dζ = 0.0596,
which leads to
α
0
α
1
+
m
0
m
1
r
2
= −9.2r
−
1
3
γ
0
, (16a)
_
α
1
m
0
−
m
1
α
0
m
2
0
_
r = 17.5r
−
1
3
. (16b)
210 J Eng Math (2007) 57:205–217
The numbers in (16a, 16b) are different from I, because in I the jump across the critical layer has the
wrong sign in view of the basic ﬂow properties near the critical level.
We turn next to the details of the critical layer.
3 Criticallayer analysis
3.1 Linear critical layer
Let z =
3
¯
ζ +
4
η. For the linear critical layer analysis only, it is more convenient to work in terms of
complex quantities and from (7, 9) the expansions in the critical layer region take the form
U = (
−1
˜
U
0
+
˜
U
1
+
˜
U
2
+· · · )e
ix
+c.c.,
V = (
−1
˜
V
0
+
˜
V
1
+
˜
V
2
+· · · )e
ix
+c.c.,
W = (
˜
W
0
+
˜
W
1
+
2
˜
W
2
+· · · )e
ix
+c.c.,
W = (
˜
P
0
+
˜
P
1
+
2
˜
P
2
+· · · )e
ix
+c.c.,
where c.c. denotes the complex conjugate.
Substitution of the above in (1, 2) yields
˜
P
0
=
˜
P
1
= const,
˜
W
0
=
−iγ
2
0
˜
P
0
B
01
, rα
0
˜
U
0
+m
0
˜
V
0
= 0,
and
˜
U
0
satisﬁes the equation
i(B
01
η +B
10
)
˜
U
0
−
d
2
˜
U
0
dη
2
= −i(α
0
˜
P
0
+
˜
W
0
ra
1u
).
The solutions for
˜
U
0
then give the required behaviours (7) as η →±∞. At the next order
˜
W
1
has a trivial
solution.
˜
W
2
satisﬁes the equation
−i(B
01
η +B
10
)
d
2
˜
W
2
dη
2
+
d
4
˜
W
2
dη
4
= −iγ
2
0
(B
01
η +B
10
)
˜
W
0
+2iγ
2
0
(1 +a
0v
)
α
0
d
˜
V
0
dη
−i
˜
W
0
(B
03
η +B
12
). (17)
The second term on the righthand side of (17) arises from the inﬂuence of the Coriolis force and can be
removed by writing
d
2
˜
W
2
dη
2
=
2
+
_
γ
2
0
+
B
03
B
01
_
˜
W
0
+γ
2
0
(1 +a
0v
)
B
01
α
0
d
2
˜
V
0
dη
2
.
Here
2
satisﬁes
i(B
01
η +B
10
)
2
−
d
2
2
dη
2
= i
˜
W
0
_
B
12
−
B
03
B
10
B
01
_
. (18)
The solution for
2
,
2
= iB
01

−2/3
_
B
12
−
B
03
B
10
B
01
__
∞
0
e
−t
3
/3
e
i(η+
B
10
B
01
)B
01

2/3
t
dt
J Eng Math (2007) 57:205–217 211
gives the continuation below the critical layer and the required ‘−iπ’ phase jump. This completes the
details of the linear critical layer.
We consider next what happens when the disturbance size δ is increased. As in previous criticallayers
studies, nonlinear balances will ﬁrst signiﬁcantly alter the properties of the critical layer, and this happens
when δ = O(
2
).
4 Nonlinear critical layer
4.1 Inviscid region
Here, with z =
3
ζ , the above discussion suggests that in this region the expansions for the ﬂow quantities
will take the form
u = r ¯ u + ¯ u
M
(ζ ) +
2
(¯ u
0
+u
M1
(ζ )) +
3
¯ u
1
+
4
¯ u
2
+· · · , (19a)
v = r¯ v + ¯ v
M
(ζ ) +
2
(¯ v
0
+v
M1
(ζ )) +
3
¯ v
1
+
4
¯ v
2
+· · · , (19b)
w =
2
¯ w
0
+
3
¯ w
1
+· · · , (19c)
p =
2
¯ p
0
+
3
¯ p
1
+· · · . (19d)
The additional terms ¯ u
M
, ¯ v
M
at O() are necessary because of the properties of the nonlinear critical layer,
see [7, 9, 10]. It is noted also that the disturbance for the wcomponent of velocity is larger than the basic
ﬂow in this direction. Next writing,
(¯ u
0
, ¯ v
0
, ¯ w
0
, ¯ p
0
) = A(u
0
(ζ ) cos x, v
0
(ζ ) cos x, w
0
(ζ ) sin x, p
0
(ζ ) cos x), (20)
and substituting in the Navier–Stokes equations then shows that w
0
(ζ ) satisﬁes the Rayleigh equation (6a)
with boundary conditions (6b, 6c). In (20) the amplitude constant A is O(1), given that the disturbances
represented by the terms of (¯ u
0
, ¯ v
0
, ¯ w
0
, ¯ p
0
) are of O(
2
).
At next order the cos x component of ¯ w
1
, say w
1c
, satisﬁes the same equation as w
0
. The sin x component
of ¯ w
0
, w
1s
now satisﬁes
U
0B
(w
1s
−γ
2
0
w
1s
) −U
0B
w
1s
= 2A
_
α
0
α
1
+
m
0
m
1
r
2
_
W
0
− A
(U
0M
+U
1B
)
U
0B
_
U
0B
U
0B
−
(U
0M
+U
1B
)
(U
0m
+U
1B
)
_
W
0
, (21)
where U
kM
= α
k
¯ u
M
+
m
k
r
¯ v
M
. The appearance of the meanﬂow terms in (21) will thus alter the eigenre
lations determining the corrections to the wavenumber and wave angle. The eigenrelations will also be
affected by the properties of the nonlinear critical layer, and it to this that we turn our attention next.
4.2 Criticallayer expansions
The expansions in the critical layer region are now, with z =
3
¯
ζ +
4
η,
u = ra
0u
+ ˜ u
0
+
2
˜ u
1
+
3
˜ u
2
+· · · , (22a)
v = ra
0v
+ ˜ v
0
+
2
˜ v
1
+
3
˜ v
2
+· · · , (22b)
w =
2
˜ w
0
+(
3
˜ w
1
+a
0w
) +
4
( ˜ w
2
+a
1w
η) +· · · , (22c)
p =
2
˜ p
0
+
3
˜ p
1
+
4
˜ p
2
+· · · . (22d)
212 J Eng Math (2007) 57:205–217
The a
0w
, a
1w
η terms in (22c) come from expanding the basic ﬂow for the wcomponent of velocity. The
leadingorder problem with ˜ u
jk
= α
j
˜ u
k
+
m
j
r
˜ v
k
is
∂ ˜ u
00
∂x
+
∂ ˜ w
0
∂η
= 0, (23a)
(B
10
+ ˜ u
00
)
∂ ˜ u
0
∂x
+ ˜ w
0
∂ ˜ u
0
∂η
= −α
0
∂ ˜ p
0
∂x
+
∂
2
˜ u
0
∂η
2
, (23b)
(B
10
+ ˜ u
00
)
∂ ˜ v
0
∂x
+ ˜ w
0
∂ ˜ v
0
∂η
= −
m
0
r
∂ ˜ p
0
∂x
+
∂
2
˜ v
0
∂η
2
, (23c)
∂ ˜ p
0
∂η
= 0. (23d)
These equations may be solved for the crossﬂow component, by taking α
0
times (23b) added to m
0
/r times
(23c). After matching with the inviscid regions, this gives
˜ w
0
= −
γ
2
0
B
01
∂ ˜ p
0
∂x
=
γ
2
0
Ap
00
B
01
sin x, ˜ p
0
= Ap
00
cos x, p
00
= p
0
(
¯
ζ ), ˜ u
00
= B
01
η +C
00
, (24)
and C
00
= α
0
u
±
M
(
¯
ζ ) +(m
0
/r)v
±
M
(
¯
ζ ) is independent of η and therefore does not jump across ζ =
¯
ζ . Writing
¯
B
10
= B
10
+C
00
, ˜ v
0
satisﬁes,
(
¯
B
10
+B
01
η)
∂ ˜ v
0
∂x
+ ˜ w
0
∂ ˜ v
0
∂η
= −
m
0
r
∂ ˜ p
0
∂x
+
∂
2
˜ v
0
∂η
2
. (25)
Equation 25 can be written in a more standard form with the normalisations:
˜ v
0
= ra
1v
η +K
0
(Y −V
∗
0
), K
0
=
_
m
0
r
p
00
A−
γ
2
0
Ap
00
ra
1v
B
01
_
1
B
01
C
∗
, −C
∗
Y =
¯
B
10
B
01
+η,
C
2
∗
=
γ
2
0
Ap
00
B
2
01
, B
01
λ
c
= C
−3
∗
. (26)
and then V
∗
0
satisﬁes the Haberman [7] nonlinear critical layer equation,
Y
∂V
∗
0
∂x
+sin x
∂V
∗
0
∂Y
−λ
c
∂
2
V
∗
0
∂η
2
= 0, (27a)
with boundary conditions,
V
∗
0
∼ Y +
v
M
±
(
¯
ζ )
K
0
+
cos x
Y
+· · · as Y →±∞, (27b)
to match with the inviscid zone. The parameter λ
c
arising from the normalisations gives a measure of
nonlinearity in the sense that linear theory corresponds to λ
c
→∞and strong nonlinearity when λ
c
→0.
The properties of Eq. 27 are well known; see [7, 9, 11]. In particular, V
∗
0
plays the role of the vorticity here,
so that with V
∗
0
= ∂
2
ψ
∗
0
/∂Y
2
, and
∂ψ
∗
0
∂Y
∼
Y
2
2
+
v
±
M
(
¯
ζ )
K
0
Y +cos x ln Y +B
±
0
(x) as Y →±∞.
J Eng Math (2007) 57:205–217 213
It can be shown that
2λ
c
¯ v
+
M
(
¯
ζ ) − ¯ v
−
M
(
¯
ζ )
K
0
=
1
π
_
2π
0
(B
+
0
−B
−
0
) sin x dx = µ. (28)
In the limit that A → 0, λ
c
→ ∞and µ → −π corresponding to linear theory. For A 1, λ
c
→ 0 and
µ →λ
c
C
(1)
with C
(1)
= −5.516. In the limit λ
c
→0 the solution for V
∗
0
is given by
V
∗
0
= L
0
(ρ), ρ =
Y
2
2
+cos x, L(ρ) = L
0
+
_
ρ
1
L
0
(ρ) dρ, (29)
with
L(ρ) = ±
2π
_
2π
0
√
2(ρ −cos x)
1
2
dx
for
_
Y >
√
2(ρ −cos x)
1
2
Y < −
√
2(ρ −cos x)
1
2
,
L(ρ) = L
0
inside the cat’s eyes Y <
√
2(ρ −cos x)
1
2
.
In particular, from (28)
(V
∗
0
)
∞
−∞
=
1
K
0
_
v
+
M
(
¯
ζ ) −v
−
M
(
¯
ζ )
_
=
1
2
C
(1)
for A 1. (30)
Thus, the problem for V
∗
0
shows that, even though the jump in the effective mean ﬂow is zero, the separate
components ¯ u
M
, ¯ v
M
do suffer jumps across
¯
ζ .
For O(1) values of λ
c
, a numerical solution of (27) is necessary, which can be found in, for example, [7].
The secondorder problem gives rise to the set of equations,
∂
∂x
(˜ u
01
+ ˜ u
10
) +
∂ ˜ w
1
∂η
= 0,
N
1
(˜ u
1
, ˜ u
0
) +r
_
a
2
0u
−
_
1 +a
2
0v
__
= −α
0
∂ ˜ p
1
∂x
−α
1
∂ ˜ p
0
∂x
,
N
1
(˜ v
1
, ˜ v
0
) +2ra
0u
(1 +a
0v
) = −
m
0
r
∂ ˜ p
1
∂x
−
m
1
r
∂ ˜ p
0
∂x
,
with the operator N
1
deﬁned by
N
1
(˜ u
1
, ˜ u
0
) = (
¯
B
10
+B
01
η)
∂ ˜ u
1
∂x
+(B
20
+u
10
+u
01
)
∂ ˜ u
0
∂x
+ ˜ w
0
∂ ˜ u
1
∂η
+( ˜ w
1
+a
0w
)
∂ ˜ u
0
∂η
−
∂
2
˜ u
1
∂η
2
.
These equations can be solved by setting
˜ u
01
+ ˜ u
10
=
∂ψ
1
∂η
, ˜ w
1
= −
∂ψ
1
∂x
to get
˜ u
01
+ ˜ u
10
= −B
01
d(x, r), (31)
where d(x, r) can be determined by matching, although we do not need it explicitly.
214 J Eng Math (2007) 57:205–217
The continuation below the critical layer requires the solution of the thirdorder problem, where
(˜ u
2
, ˜ v
2
, ˜ w
2
, ˜ p
2
) satisfy the equations
∂
∂x
(˜ u
02
+ ˜ u
11
+ ˜ u
20
) +
∂ ˜ w
2
∂η
= 0, (32a)
N
2
(˜ u
2
, ˜ u
1
, ˜ u
0
) + ˜ u
0
a
0u
−2a
ov
˜ v
0
−2˜ v
0
+ra
0u
∂ ˜ u
0
∂r
= −
_
α
0
∂ ˜ p
2
∂x
+α
1
∂ ˜ p
1
∂x
+α
2
∂ ˜ p
0
∂x
_
, (32b)
N
2
(˜ v
2
, ˜ v
1
, ˜ v
0
) +a
0u
˜ v
0
+2˜ u
0
+a
0u
˜ v
0
+a
0v
˜ u
0
+ra
0u
∂ ˜ v
0
∂r
= −
_
m
0
r
∂ ˜ p
2
∂x
+
m
1
r
∂ ˜ p
1
∂x
+
m
2
r
∂ ˜ p
0
∂x
_
, (32c)
(B
01
η +
¯
B
10
)
∂ ˜ w
0
∂x
= −
∂ ˜ p
2
∂η
. (32d)
The operator N
2
above is deﬁned by
N
2
(˜ u
2
, ˜ u
1
, ˜ u
0
) = (B
01
η +
¯
B
10
)
∂ ˜ u
2
∂x
+(B
20
+ ˜ u
10
+ ˜ u
01
)
∂ ˜ u
1
∂x
+(B
30
+ ˜ u
20
+ ˜ u
11
+ ˜ u
02
)
∂ ˜ u
0
∂x
+ ˜ w
0
∂ ˜ u
0
∂η
+(w
1
+a
0w
)
∂ ˜ u
1
∂η
+( ˜ w
2
+a
1w
η)
∂ ˜ u
0
∂η
−
∂
2
˜ u
2
∂η
2
−γ
2
0
∂
2
˜ u
0
∂x
2
.
If we let
∂ψ
2
∂η
= ˜ u
02
+ ˜ u
11
+ ˜ u
20
,
∂ψ
2
∂x
= −˜ w
2
,
then, using (24, 31) and after some manipulation, it can be shown that ψ
2
satisﬁes
(B
01
η +
¯
B
10
)
∂
∂x
_
∂
2
ψ
2
∂η
2
_
+ ˜ w
0
∂
3
ψ
2
∂η
3
−
∂
4
ψ
2
∂η
4
= −B
03
−γ
2
0
(B
01
η +
¯
B
10
) ˜ w
0
+
2(1 +a
0v
)γ
2
0
α
0
_
∂ ˜ v
0
∂η
−ra
1v
_
. (33a)
The boundary conditions on ψ
2
to enable a match with the solutions outside the critical layer are
∂ψ
2
∂η
∼ B
03
η
3
6
+
_
B
12
+C
±
02
_
η
2
2
+
_
D
±
01
+C
±
11
+B
21
_
η
+
B
01
_
B
12
+C
±
02
_
−B
03
¯
B
10
B
2
01
_
γ
2
0
P
00
A
B
01
_
cos x log η +U
±
(x), (33b)
as η →±∞. Here
C
±
jk
=
_
α
j
¯ u
(k)
M
(
¯
ζ ) +
m
j
r
¯ v
(k)
M
(
¯
ζ )
_
±
(34a)
D
±
01
=
_
α
0
¯ u
(k)
m1
(
¯
ζ ) +
m
0
r
¯ v
(k)
m1
(
¯
ζ )
_
±
. (34b)
Equation 33a is the nonlinear counterpart of (17). We note that the ∂/∂r terms have cancelled out when
working in terms of the crossﬂow components, but they do not disappear in the equation for ˜ u
2
, ˜ v
2
. Also
the terms in (33a) stemming fromthe Coriolis forces, cannot be removed, unlike in the linear case, primarily
because the equation here is nonlinear. This and the −B
03
term (arising from the basic ﬂow) provide the
forcing in the resultant Haberman equation below. The C
±
02
, D
±
01
contributions stem from the meanﬂow
terms in the inviscid region, as can be seen from (19).
J Eng Math (2007) 57:205–217 215
The normalisations (26) together with
∂
2
ψ
2
∂η
2
=
∂
2
¯
ψ
2
∂η
2
+
γ
2
0
B
01
˜ p
0
,
¯
ψ
2
= −C
3
∗
_
B
12
−
B
03
¯
B
10
B
01
_
ψ
∗
2
, (35)
reduces (33) to the canonical form,
Y
∂
∂x
_
∂
2
ψ
∗
2
∂Y
2
_
+sin x
∂
3
ψ
∗
2
∂Y
3
−λ
c
∂
4
ψ
∗
2
∂Y
4
= D
3
λ
c
+σ
∗
_
1 −
∂V
∗
0
∂Y
_
, (36a)
∂ψ
∗
2
∂Y
∼ −D
3
Y
3
6
+(1 +b
±
2
)
Y
2
2
+
_
d
1
+b
±
1
_
Y
+
_
1 +b
±
2
_
cos x log Y +YF
2
(x) +F
±
1
(x) as Y →±∞. (36b)
Here
α
c
=
B
01
B
12
−B
03
¯
B
10
B
01
, σ
∗
=
2(1 +a
0v
)γ
2
0
K
0
α
0
B
01
α
c
C
3
∗
, D
3
=
B
03
C
∗
α
c
, b
±
2
=
C
±
02
α
c
,
−C
∗
D
1
α
c
= B
21
+
B
03
¯
B
2
10
2B
2
01
−
¯
B
10
B
12
B
01
, −C
∗
α
c
b
±
1
= −
¯
B
10
C
±
02
B
01
+D
±
01
+C
±
11
. (37)
Equation 36 is a forced Haberman [7] equation and is different from previous studies on critical layers
because of the forcing terms in (36a), and the extra Y
3
, b
±
2
contributions in the boundary conditions.
Nevertheless (36) does have properties similar to the Haberman [7] equation.
Identities relating the jump in the velocity to that in the mean vorticity can be derived as for the
Haberman equation. These are obtained by integrating (36) with respect to Y, then over a period; see ([7]).
It is found that
−λ
c
_
b
+
2
−b
−
2
_
=
σ
∗
K
0
_
˜ v
+
M
− ˜ v
−
M
_
, (38)
and
φ −2λ
c
(b
+
1
−b
−
1
) = −
σ
∗
π
_
2π
0
(B
+
0
−B
−
0
) dx. (39)
The quantity φ =
1
π
_
2π
0
sin x(F
+
1
−F
−
1
) dx is the jump in the sin x component of ∂ψ
2
/∂Y
We consider next how the jump in the velocity modiﬁes the eigenrelations.
4.3 Nonlinear eigenrelations
The leadingorder wall displacement is basically the same as in the linear case. The expansions in the wall
layer (z =
4
ξ) are
u = r ¯ u(0) +
2
u
0
+· · · ,
v = r¯ v(0) +
2
v
0
+· · · ,
w =
3
w
0
+· · · ,
p =
3
p
0
+· · · .
216 J Eng Math (2007) 57:205–217
Solutions for the fundamental are as in the linear case, see (11), and after matching with the ¯ w
1
component
in the inviscid regions gives
( ¯ w
1
)(ζ = 0) =
−3Ai
(0)
λ
1
3
Acos
_
x +
π
3
_
. (40)
The criticallayer problem (36) determines the jump conditions on ∂ ¯ w
1
/∂η and with the above normalisa
tions we ﬁnd that
_
w
1c
_
+
−
= C
2
∗
(−φ)
B
12
B
01
−B
03
¯
B
10
B
01
, (41a)
(w
1s
)
+
−
= 0. (41b)
Hence the resulting eigenrelations are
−
3Ai
(0)
2λ
1
3
= (−φ)w
2
0
(
¯
ζ )
_
B
12
B
01
−B
03
¯
B
10
B
2
01
_
, (42a)
and
3
√
3
2λ
1
3
Ai
(0) = 2
_
α
0
α
1
+
m
0
m
1
r
2
_
_
∞
0
w
2
0
dζ
−
_
∞
0
_
U
0B
(U
0M
+U
1B
) −U
0B
_
U
0M
+U
1B
__ w
2
0
(ζ )
U
2
0B
dζ . (42b)
Now
α
c
B
01
=
B
12
B
01
−B
03
¯
B
10
B
2
01
=
r
m
0
_
α
1
−
m
1
α
0
m
0
_
_
a
2u
B
01
−B
03
a
0u
B
2
01
_
m
0
−
B
03
C
00
B
2
01
. (43)
The last term in (43) involving C
00
is not present in the linear case and represents the effects of the
meanﬂow term.
From (16), (40), (42) we ﬁnally obtain
_
α
1
m
0
−
α
0
m
1
m
2
0
_
= 17.5r
−
1
3
_
π
−φ
_
+
B
03
C
00
m
0
(a
2u
B
01
−B
03
a
0u
)
(44a)
_
α
0
α
1
+
m
0
m
1
r
2
_
= −9.2r
−
1
3
_
π
−φ
_
−
1
2J
1
_
J
2
m
0
_
B
03
C
00
a
2u
B
01
−B
03
a
0u
_
−J
3
_
, (44b)
where
J
1
=
_
∞
0
w
2
0
dζ , J
2
= m
0
_
−
∞
0
U
0B
¯ u
−U
0B
¯ u
U
2
0B
dζ , J
3
=
_
−
∞
0
U
0B
u
0M
−U
0B
u
0M
U
2
0B
dζ .
The corrections to the wave number and wave angle given by (44) are the main results in this paper and
show the dependence of the wavenumber and angle on the neutral amplitude A via the phase jump φ, and
the mean ﬂow terms. For a given A and hence λ
c
, a numerical solution of the forced Haberman equation
(36a) is required to determine φ. If λ
c
→∞, corresponding to A →0, it can be shown that φ →−π and
a match with linear theory is achieved. For large amplitudes A 1 then λ
c
→ 0 and the solution of the
J Eng Math (2007) 57:205–217 217
Haberman equation gives rise to the cat’s eye structure with φ approaching zero. The limiting structure is
akin to that of the strongly nonlinear critical layer [8]. The full details of this limit are omitted here, (these
are available by request from the author), but the analysis suggests that there is a crossover from the
inﬂexional instability to Benney–Bergeron type modes. These are amplitudedependent stationary neutral
modes.
5 Discussion
In this paper we have discussed critical layers in rotatingdisk ﬂow and have shown how the calculation
of the wavenumber and waveangle depend crucially on the properties of the nonlinear critical layer. For
very small amplitudes A(R
−
1
3
) the stationary modes correspond to inﬂexional modes and are the same
as those ﬁrst discussed in [1]. For increased amplitudes A ∼ R
−
1
3
these modes are again inﬂexional but are
now amplitudedependent and require the solution of the forced Haberman equation with novel boundary
conditions. For larger amplitudes A R
−
1
3
, speciﬁcally A ∼ R
−
2
9
, there is a crossover fromthe inﬂexional
modes to Benney–Bergerontype modes. If we assume C
00
= 0 in (44a) and b
+
2
= b
−
2
to leading order
in (38), then in this second stage the wavenumber is decreasing as the amplitude increases, and an O(1)
change in the wavenumber is predicted when A ∼ R
−
2
9
. The decreased wavenumber, corresponding to
fewer vortices, is in qualitative agreement with experiments.
In GSW it was suggested that viscosity would account for the discrepancy between the observed and
calculated values of the wavenumber from linear theory. The inﬂuence of nonlinearity, as shown here, can
signiﬁcantly alter the wavenumber and it is possible that the experimentally observed modes are highly
nonlinear stationary modes of the type discussed here. Of course a more quantitative comparison with
experiments requires a solution of the nonlinear forced Haberman problem which is left open.
Acknowledgements The author would like to thank Professor P. Hall for suggesting the problem and discussions on his
work. Professor F.T. Smith FRS is thanked for suggesting many improvements to an earlier draft of the paper.
References
1. Gregory N, Stuart JT, Walker WS (1955) On the stability of threedimensional boundary layers with applications to the
ﬂow due to a rotating disk. Philos Trans R Soc London Ser A 248:155–199
2. Malik MR (1986) The neutral curve for stationary disturbances in rotatingdisk ﬂow. J Fluid Mech 164:275–287
3. Hall P (1986) An asymptotic investigation of the stationary modes of instability of the boundary layer on a rotating disk.
Proc R Soc London Ser A 406:93–106
4. Bassom AP, Gajjar JSB (1988) Nonstationary cross ﬂow vortices in a threedimensional boundary layer. Proc R Soc
London Ser A 417:179–212
5. Gajjar JSB (1996) Nonlinear stability of crossﬂow vortices in compressible boundary layers. Stud Appl Math 96:53–84
6. Mackerrel SO (1987) A nonlinear asymptotic investigation of the stationary modes of instability of the 3 dimensional
boundary layer on a rotating disk. Proc R Soc London Ser A 413:497–513
7. Haberman R (1972) Critical layers in parallel ﬂows. Stud Appl Maths 51:139–161
8. Benney DJ, Bergeron RF (1969) A new class of nonlinear waves in parallel ﬂows. Stud Appl Maths 48:181–204
9. Stewartson K (1981) Marginally stable inviscid ﬂows with critical layers. IMA J Appl Math 27:133–176
10. Smith FT, Bodonyi RJ (1982) Nonlinear critical layers and their development in streaming ﬂow stability. J Fluid Mech
118:165–185
11. Smith FT, Bodonyi RJ (1982) Amplitudedependent neutral modes in Hagen–Poiseuille ﬂow through a circular pipe.
Proc R Soc London Ser A 384:463–489
12. Bodonyi RJ, SmithFT, Gajjar JSB(1983) Amplitudedependent stability of boundarylayer ﬂowwitha strongly nonlinear
critical layer. IMA J Appl Math 30:1–19
13. von Kármán T (1921) Uber laminaire und turbulente reibung. Zeitschrift fur angewandte Mathematik und Mechanik,
1:233–253