58 views

Uploaded by jcasafranca

capa limite

save

You are on page 1of 20

DOI: 10.2478/s11600-011-0025-1

in Turbulent Boundary Layers:

An Integral Reynolds-Number Dependent Solution

Oscar CASTRO-ORGAZ1 and Subhasish DEY2

1

e-mail: oscarcastro@ias.csic.es

West Bengal, India; e-mail: sdey@iitkgp.ac.in (corresponding author)

Abstract

Geophysical flows of practical interest encompass turbulent boundary

layer flows. The velocity profile in turbulent flows is generally described by

a log- or a power-law applicable to certain zones of the boundary layer, or

by wall-wake law for the entire zone of the boundary layer. In this study,

a novel theory is proposed from which the power-law velocity profile is obtained for the turbulent boundary layer flow. The new power-law profile is

based on the conservation of mass and the skin friction within the boundary layer. From the proposed theory, analytical expressions for the powerlaw velocity profile are presented, and their Reynolds-number dependency

is highlighted. The velocity profile, skin friction coefficient and boundary

layer thickness obtained from the proposed theory are validated by the reliable experimental data for zero-pressure gradient turbulent boundary layers.

The expressions for Reynolds shear stress and eddy viscosity distributions

across the boundary layer are also obtained and validated by the experimental data.

Key words: boundary layer, power-law, Reynolds stress, stream flows,

turbulence.

Unauthenticated

Download Date | 2/22/15 5:23 PM

994

1. INTRODUCTION

Several geophysical flows of practical relevance are boundary layer turbulent

flows, such as the atmospheric wind boundary layer or the free surface flow in

a river (Meyer 2009) and erosion gullies. Turbulent flows are required to be

described in terms of the velocity profile and flow resistance (Rowiski et al.

2005). For a velocity profile in turbulent flows, the flow conditions in the vicinity of the wall are described by the so-called logarithmic law of the wall (henceforth log-law for brevity). However, it has been extensively verified that the

log-law does not apply in the outer region of the boundary layer. For instance,

in free surface flows, the law of the wall holds only for 20 percent of the flow

depth from the wall (White 1991). Better agreement from the theoretical validity of the law of the wall could be achieved simply by changing the parameters

of the law of the wall while fitting the velocity profile across the entire boundary layer (Chen 1991). This method, however, suffers from a weak physical

basis. It has been recently shown that the constants of the law of the wall could

vary considerably from their classical values of = 0.41 and B = 5, where

is the von Krmn constant, and B is the constant of integration for the law

of the wall (sterlund 1999, sterlund et al. 2000, Koll 2006, George 2007).

Coles (1956) made an important advancement and argued that away from the

wall, the deviations of the profiles of measured velocity from those obtained

from the law of the wall could be explained by another universal law, called the

law of the wake. Coupling both the laws (wall and wake), a complete approximation to the time-averaged velocity profile in turbulent flows is then feasible

(White 1991, Krogstad et al. 1992, Guo et al. 2005). Note that joint wall and

wake laws are only feasible for the flow above the roughness elements, but not

for the flow within.

The deviation of the log-law from the measured velocity profiles indicates that the velocity profiles could be explained by power-laws, allowing for

a no-slip boundary condition. Extensive research has resulted in both physical and experimental support for the power-law (Barenblatt 1993, George and

Castillo 1997, Wosnik et al. 2000, Barenblatt 2000a, b), against the widely

used log-law model (Zagarola 1996, Zagarola et al. 1997, Zagarola and Smits

1998, Buschmann and Gad-el-Hak 2003a, b, Buschmann and Gad-el-Hak

2006). In a series of papers by Afzal (1996, 2001a, b, 2005, 2007, 2008)

and Afzal et al. (2006), it was shown that in power-law theory the outer layer is

also a wake-like structure, presenting composite power law-wake law velocity

profiles for boundary layer flows.

In general, the velocity profile in turbulent flows is often described by a

log- or a power-law in certain zones of the boundary layer or by wall-wake law

to describe the entire velocity profile. While the wall-wake law describes the

entire velocity profile in turbulent flows, there is a lack of generalization in the

Unauthenticated

Download Date | 2/22/15 5:23 PM

995

2002) between power- and log-law advocates. In this study, a novel power-law

velocity profile is developed based on the boundary layer theory considering

the results of the wall-wake law velocity profile. The profile obtained from the

new power-law is in good agreement with the measured velocity data within the

entire boundary layer. The proposed power-law produces the same skin friction

coefficient and the displacement thickness that are obtained from the log-wake

model. Thus, this profile simplifies the computation of boundary layers using

integral methods based on von Krmns integral equation (White 1991). New

generalized Reynolds-number dependent power law parameters derived from

the theory are presented here. The zero-pressure gradient turbulent boundary

layer (henceforth ZPGTBL for brevity) is one of the fundamental problems on

turbulent shear flows. It is important in mechanical, aeronautical and hydraulic

engineering (Rotta 1962, Hinze 1975, White 1991). Thus, the ZPGTBL is used

as a test case to validate the proposed power-law theory, yet it may be applied

for variable pressure gradients within the boundary layer. This may be achieved

by providing closure, as a function of the pressure gradient, to the strength of

the wake in the wall-wake model. This is also a parameter in the proposed

power-law.

2.

TURBULENT BOUNDARY LAYERS

The time-averaged velocity profile for the entire thickness of a turbulent boundary layer for smooth-bed flows can be expressed as a combination of logarithmic

and wake terms (Dean 1976)

1 yu

u

= ln

+B+

u

1 yu

= ln

+B+

y 2 1

y 3

1

(1 + 6)

(1 + 4)

,

(1)

wall) at a distance y , y is the vertical distance from the wall, u is the shear

velocity, that is, (0 /)0.5 , 0 is the boundary shear stress, is the mass density

of fluid, is the kinematic viscosity of fluid, is the boundary layer thickness,

W is the wake function, and is the wake parameter. In equation (1), the wake

function proposed by Dean (1976) and Granville (1976) was considered. The

velocity defect law for the wall-wake model is obtained from eq. (1) as

y 2

y 3

U u

1 y 1

= ln

+

2 (1 + 6)

+ (1 + 4)

u

Unauthenticated

Download Date | 2/22/15 5:23 PM

(2)

996

shear stress by

0 =

1

Cf U 2 .

2

(3)

with other wake terms, can be considered. However, for the integral treatment

of boundary layer flow using the momentum equation, Deans approach is simple, satisfying the boundary conditions at the outer edge of the velocity profile,

that is, du/dy = 0. The analysis is then limited to this approach. The first two

terms of eq. (1) refer to the law of the wall, and the terms involving correspond to the law of the wake. Equation (1) accounts for a wake term that

is a result of a best fit of the experimental data over the entire boundary layer

thickness in the turbulent smooth flow regime. The simple polynomial for the

wake effect in eq. (1) satisfies the boundary conditions for the velocity profile,

including a zero-slope at the outer edge of the boundary layer. This condition is

not considered in the classic cosine law of the wake proposed by Coles (1956).

For the turbulent smooth flow regime, the law of the wall only agrees with the

experimental data up to y/ 0.2. For y/ > 0.2, the wake term in eq. (1) is

added to the law of the wall to match with the mean velocity profile in turbulent

flows. There is a strong debate concerning the mean velocity profile in turbulent boundary layers (George 2007, Buschmann and Gad-el-Hak 2003a, b).

Recently, Buschmann and Gad-el-Hak (2006) argued that it is not viable to

propose either a pure log-law or a power-law to describe the entire velocity

profile in a turbulent boundary layer. This indicates that within the boundary

layer, there are zones that can better be described by log-law equations, whereas

power-laws appear to fit reasonably well in the other zones. Then, even when

there exists a strong physical reasoning from the viewpoints of both the laws,

use of only a log- or a power-law to fit the entire velocity profile is not yet a

solved problem.

Considering the method of Coles (1956), given in eq. (1) with a polynomial

for wake, we can describe the entire mean velocity profile. Equation (1) includes

the free parameters as , B and , determined from experimental data. The

power-law model for smooth-wall flows is defined as (Castro-Orgaz 2009, 2010,

2011)

yu 1/n

u

=

u

(4)

with a coefficient and n an exponent, which can be proposed for the turbulent

boundary layer velocity profile. Afzal (1996) proposed a composite power-law

profile

yu 1/n

u

=

+ E ,

u

Unauthenticated

Download Date | 2/22/15 5:23 PM

(5)

997

where is the power law wake function and E is a wake constant (Afzal et al.

2011). Note that eq. (4) is a simplified form of eq. (5) for = 0. George

and Castillo (1997) developed a two-layer (inner and outer) power law theory

in turbulent boundary layer, in contrast to one inner power-law (eq. (2)) velocity

profile. For an accurate description of the entire velocity profile this is one of

the current theories. Another option is the wall-wake law (White 1991). For

integral computations of boundary layer flows using the momentum equation

1

d 1

= C 1+ H

dx 2 f

2

dU 2

,

U 2 dx

(6)

x is the streamwise distance along the wall, and H is /, that is, the shape

factor of the boundary layer, it is standard use of eq. (1) coupled with eq. (6)

(White 1991, Schlichting and Gersten 2000). However, an alternative approach

to simplify integral momentum computations of boundary layers is to use a

single power-law within the boundary layer, eq. (1). White (1991) considered

a single power law with n = 7. Thus, in the present work, the inner and outer

regions are not considered for the power law, keeping in mind the associated loss

of accuracy in a point-by-point description of the velocity profile. Instead, an

approximate power law, equivalent to the wall-wake model in terms of integral

momentum modeling, is proposed using eq. (4). The purpose is to simplify the

use of von Krmns equation, eq. (6), in practical applications of boundary

layer flows. The functions for Cf and are needed in eq. (3) for a closure, and,

therefore, some physical conditions need to be imposed to constrain the values

given by eq. (4) based on those given by eq. (1). Note that a one-term power law

(Barenblatt 1993) would not suffice for boundary layer flows. For this reason,

the wall-wake law is considered here as the real velocity profile to propose an

approximate power-law model to be used into eq. (6).

A theory is thus required for the parameters n and , and their dependency

on the Reynolds number. Note that eq. (1) describes a developing shear layer

of skin friction Cf and displacement thickness . Therefore, the power-law

model, of necessity, should produce the same Cf and implicit in eq. (1) for

an accurate description of the boundary layer in an integral sense using eq. (6).

The displacement thickness of the boundary layer is obtained by integrating

eq. (1) as

w

0

u

u

dy =

1

U

U

11

+

12

.

(7)

=

.

1+n

Unauthenticated

Download Date | 2/22/15 5:23 PM

(8)

998

By using the condition for the conservation of mass within the boundary layer,

it results in

U

n=

u

11

+

12

1

2

Cf

1/2

1/n

1=

11

+

12

1

1,

(9)

=

2

Cf

1/2

(10)

Using eq. (1) at the outer edge of the boundary layer, where u(y = ) = U ,

yields

U

1

= ln

u

2

+B+

=

2

Cf

1/2

.

(11)

eqs. (9)-(11)

1

u

11

+

1,

n = ln

+ B + 2

12

1/n

u

2

u

1

ln

+B+

,

=

(12)

(13)

and . Now, assume that is computed using eq. (5), and equate it with eq. (9).

This would result in values of n and including the effect of the power-law wake

constant E in addition to . If we neglect both E and effects, we get

1/2

n = (2/Cf )

1,

(14)

Equations (12) and (13) imply a Reynolds number dependence + = u /

of the power-law parameters, as earlier discussed by Barenblatt (1993) and

Barenblatt et al. (2000a, b) using a different theory. Their results are

2

ln + ,

3

(15)

5

1

+ ln + ,

2

3

(16)

n=

=

when taking + as the representative Reynolds number. Other choices for the

Reynolds number are possible, as were adopted by Barenblatt (1993) and Barenblatt et al. (2000a, b). Figure 1 compares the results of the new integral expressions for the power-law parameters n and , given by eqs. (12) and (13) as a

function of + , using = 0.41, B = 5, and = 0.55 for a ZPGTBL, with

Unauthenticated

Download Date | 2/22/15 5:23 PM

999

those obtained from eqs. (15) and (16) according to Barenblatt. The approach

of Barenblatt yields smaller values of n and than those obtained by using the

integral power-law proposed in this study. It was found that when coefficients

in eqs. (15) and (16) were changed as

13

ln +

16

(17)

1

7

+ ln +

2

3

(18)

n=

=

eq. (14) are included in Fig. 1 (standard approach), clearly indicating a systematic deviation from both the present approach and Barenblatt theory. Given the

dependency of n and on + , the defect profiles deduced from eq. (4) are not

fully similar. Figure 2 compares eq. (2) with the ZPGTBL experimental data

of sterlund (sterlund 1999, sterlund et al. 2000), and with the defect profiles obtained from eq. (4) for + = 9500. sterlund (1999) performed wind

tunnel experiments with flat plates. The wind profiles were measured using

hotwire techniques and the skin friction was measured independently of the velocity measurements using oil-film interferometry. Therefore, the experimental

values of Cf are not deduced from velocity profiles. Measurements were conducted in two different experimental facilities, the Minimum Turbulence Level

Fig. 1. Comparison of the proposed integral theory with the results obtained from the

approach of Barenblatt and eq. (14) (standard approach in open channel hydraulics)

for (a) , and (b) n. New Barenblatt type power-law parameters are fitted with the

analytical results of the integral model.

Unauthenticated

Download Date | 2/22/15 5:23 PM

1000

Fig. 2. Comparison of velocity defect profiles obtained from the proposed integral theory with the wall-wake model and experimental data of sterlund: (a) in natural scale,

and (b) in semi-log scale.

(MTL) wind tunnel at the Royal Institute of Technology and the National Diagnostic Facility (NDF) wind tunnel at the Illinois Institute of Technology, using

5 measuring sections tested with 10 different wind speeds in the former, and

3 sections and 5 free-stream velocities in the latter.

Notably the mean values used herein, = 0.41 and = 0.55, permit

the simulation of the velocity defect profiles of ZPGTBL accurately from the

wall-wake model. It is also shown that, in general, the new power-law profiles derived from the integral theory are in good agreement with the wall-wake

model. No attempt was made to incorporate a gradual transition to the laminar

sub-layer near the wall.

Figure 3a shows the comparison of the defect profiles obtained from eq. (2)

with those from the power-law for + = 1000 and 10 000, displaying small deviations. The same power-law defect profiles are plotted in a semi-log scale in

Fig. 3b. There is a small deviation between the two profiles for y/ < 0.1

(in the wall-zone). A comparison of eq. (1) for the complete velocity profile

u/u [y/] with eq. (4) for the proposed power-law velocity profile is shown in

Fig. 3c for + = 1000 and 10 000, and = 0.41, B = 5, and = 0.55.

There exists a good agreement between the velocity profiles obtained from the

new power-law and the log-wake law, regardless of the values of + . The dimensionless velocity U/u at the outer edge of the boundary layer is the same

for both, as the conservation of Cf was imposed. The power-law profile underestimates the flow velocity roughly in the upper half (y/ > 0.5), whereas it

overestimates in the lower half. This slight asymmetry of the power-law proUnauthenticated

Download Date | 2/22/15 5:23 PM

1001

Fig. 3. Comparison of the proposed integral power-law with the wall-wake model as

a function of + : (a) velocity defect profiles, (b) velocity defect profiles in semi-log

scale, and (c) velocity profiles.

The differences, however, are not important for integral momentum computations, because values of Cf and are preserved between both profiles (Fig. 3c).

Thus, new theory for the power-law closely approximates the complete velocity

profile within the whole thickness of a turbulent boundary layer.

A comparison of eq. (1) for the complete velocity profile u/u [y/] with

eq. (4) for the proposed power-law theory is shown in Figs. 4 and 5, for various

Unauthenticated

Download Date | 2/22/15 5:23 PM

1002

Fig. 4. Comparison of velocity profiles obtained from the proposed integral power-law

theory with those from the wall-wake model and experimental data of sterlund (1999).

= 0.41, B = 5, and = 0.55. There exists a good agreement between the

velocity profiles obtained from the new power-law model, the wall-wake model

and experimental data, regardless of the values of + , supporting the universality of the new expressions for both n and . sterlund (1999) measured the wall

shear stress by an oil film interferometry, which provides information indepenUnauthenticated

Download Date | 2/22/15 5:23 PM

1003

Fig. 5. Additional comparison of velocity profiles obtained from the proposed integral power-law theory with those from the wall-wake model and experimental data of

sterlund (1999).

dent of the log-law of the wall. Thus, this complete data set was considered

adequate for an impartial evaluation of the wall-wake and power-law profiles.

The power-law profile of eq. (1) may be written more generally as

u

=

u

y

di

1/n

,

(19)

where di = ks , that is, the roughness height for turbulent rough flow and di =

u / for smooth walls. Castro-Orgaz (2009, 2010) and Castro-Orgaz and Hager

(2010) applied eq. (19) to high speed turbulent rough flow in chute channels of

Unauthenticated

Download Date | 2/22/15 5:23 PM

1004

high dams. Thus, the power-law integral parameters may be then formulated in

universal form

n=

2

Cf

1/2

2

Cf

11

+

12

1/2

di

1

1,

(20)

(21)

1/n

This result shows that the expressions derived are general, and only the scaling

variable changes between smooth- and rough-bed flows. Future applications of

the proposed integral power-law theory encompass rough flows, which is the

area of growing interest in the study of geophysical flows, i.e., canopy-flows

and river flows.

It is well-known from the turbulent flow theory that the strength of the

wake is not a universal constant. It varies for open channel flow, pipe flow

and boundary layer flow (White 1991). Thus, each experimental condition on

the data sets may result in different values. More importantly, depends on

the pressure gradient. Thus, the use of eqs. (20) and (21) requires an analysis of

the strength of the wake. Castro-Orgaz (2010, 2011) clearly stated that the value

= 0.2 only applies to developing chute flow, neglecting the small pressure

gradients, whereas for the ZPGTBL one has = 0.55.

3.

TESTING THE NEW THEORY WITH A ZPGTBL

The boundary layer profile for a ZPGTBL is given by

d

1

Cf =

2

dx

(22)

neglecting dU 2 /dx, e.g., the pressure gradient, in eq. (3). Using eq. (4), eq. (22)

yields

2/n

1 u

n

d

=

.

(23)

2

(n + 1) (n + 2) dx

Equation (23) is the equation developed by Castro-Orgaz (2009) for zero pressure gradient. Equation (21) after integration becomes

+

= x+

,

+

x

(24)

=

2

+1

n

2 +1 1

(n + 1)(n + 2) 2 ( n )

,

n

Unauthenticated

Download Date | 2/22/15 5:23 PM

(25)

2

.

n+2

1005

(26)

The expressions for the skin friction coefficient can be given either by

Cf = 2

1

ln

+B+

2

(27)

or by

2

Cf = 2

2/n

.

(28)

1/2

Cf

,

2

1/2

2

Rex = x+

Cf

U

=

(29)

(30)

eqs. (22)-(30) with eqs. (12) and (13) provide the solution to the boundary layer

flow.

Figure 6a presents the plots of Cf against the streamwise Reynolds number

Rex = U x/ together with the experimental data of sterlund (1999) and the

semi-empirical equations proposed by White (1991) as given below

Cf = 0.02

1/6

,

U

= 0.16 Re6/7

.

x

(31)

(32)

The results obtained from the proposed approach are in good agreement

with data of sterlund (1999), who measured Cf by oil film interferometry,

which gave an independent result from that of any velocity profile measurement. The streamwise coordinate x was considered from the leading edge of

a flat plate, as given by sterlund (1999). No attempts were considered here

to estimate the laminar boundary layer thickness or a virtual origin for the turbulent boundary layer, given the tripping of the boundary layer in sterlunds

experiments (sterlund 1999). The results from the present model form an upper bound of the experimental data. The approach of White (1991) appears to

overestimate Cf in the entire range of Rex tested by sterlund (1999), but there

is an improvement in prediction by the new theory developed herein.

The results obtained from eq. (24) are plotted in Fig. 6b and compared with

the equation given by White (1991)

= 0.16 Re1/7

.

x

x

Unauthenticated

Download Date | 2/22/15 5:23 PM

(33)

1006

Fig. 6. Streamwise evolution of (a) skin-friction coefficient, (b) boundary layer profile, and (c) power-law velocity exponent, obtained from the proposed integral theory,

wall-wake model and experimental data by sterlund; (d) effect of wake functions W

and on power-law velocity profiles.

The new solution is in agreement with Whites equation for high values of

Rex . sterlund (1999) and sterlund et al. (2000) defined the boundary layer

thickness as u(y = 95 ) = 0.95U . The data of sterlund (1999) are shown

in Fig. 6b. The boundary layer thickness, as defined alternatively by u(y =

999 ) = 0.999U , determined from sterlunds measured velocity profiles by

numerical interpolation, is also plotted in Fig. 6b. The prediction using eq. (24)

or (33) lies between 95 and 999 . However, the values of 95 are exceedingly

low, and therefore, the analytical prediction for is shown to be closer to the

values of 999 . Finally, the values of n obtained from the values reported by

are n95 = (95 /95

) 1. These values are compared

in Fig. 6c with the predictions from the integral power law theory. The values

of n95 are very low when compared with the integral theory values. Further,

Unauthenticated

Download Date | 2/22/15 5:23 PM

1007

experimental velocity profiles by sterlund were used to compute 999 and 999

,

and from these results n999 = (999 /999 )1 was computed. The last values are

shown to be higher than the n values from the integral power law theory. This

analysis shows that the integral momentum method based on the power-law

profile yields intermediate values for n and /x, lying between those derived

from the experimental data defining the nominal limit of the boundary layer

thickness at distance y = 95 from the wall (where u = 0.95U ) and distance

y = 999 (where u = 0.999U ). Lastly, n99 and 99 were determined. Figure 6b, c

reveals that these values are very close to those theoretically computed with the

integral power-law theory proposed here. This comparison is used to show that

the agreement between the integral momentum model and experimental data

relies strongly on the choice of the nominal thickness of the boundary layer for

the analysis of experimental velocity profiles.

The basic issue Can the power-law wake function ( in eq. (5)) be neglected while the log-law wake function (W in eq. (1)) is necessary, can now

be highlighted. Run 981127M of sterlund (1999) is plotted in Fig. 6d. Experimental data is compared with the log-law with wake term W 6= 0 in eq. (1),

resulting in good agreement. Furthermore, the log-law with W = 0 is seen

to be a poor approach outside the wall-layer, as expected. Therefore, W is relevant for the log-law. Now, consider the power law proposed herein, (eq. (4);

= 0), and the power-law parameters n and determined from eqs. (12) and

(13) (W 6= 0). It is seen that the proposed model is in good agreement with

experimental data and the wall-wake law. For comparison purposes, consider

eq. (4) without wake law again ( = 0), but with the parameters n and determined assuming W = 0, e.g., no wake-law in the log-law, that is, assume

eq. (14). The results included in Fig. 6d indicate that the latter is not a good

approximation. Therefore, the wake term in eq. (5) may be neglected ( = 0),

e.g., eq. (4) assumed, whereas the power-law parameters can only be determined

while the contribution of W is retained in eq. (1). The same conclusions are derived from the other runs of sterlund (1999).

4.

AND EDDY VISCOSITY DISTRIBUTIONS

Once the solution u+ = u+ (y + , + ) is derived from the integral theory, the distributions of the Reynolds shear stress and the eddy viscosity may be obtained

using the continuity and momentum equations for the turbulent flow. Here, u+

is u/u , and y + is yu / . Steady two-dimensional incompressible flow in a

ZPGTBL is given by the continuity equation

u v

+

=0,

x x

Unauthenticated

Download Date | 2/22/15 5:23 PM

(34)

1008

x-direction is

u

u

1

u

+v

=

(35)

x

y

y

with

= u0 v 0

(36)

as the Reynolds shear stress (denoted by ), when neglecting the viscous sublayer. Here, u0 and v 0 are the fluctuations in instantaneous streamwise and vertical velocities, respectively. Using eq. (34), integration of eq. (35) results in

w u2

w u

0

=

dy u

dy

x

x

y

(37)

for the Reynolds shear stress distribution. Equation (4) may be written in the

alternative form

y 1/n

u=U

(38)

u

u d

=

,

x

n dx

(39)

2u2 d

u2

=

,

x

n dx

(40)

where U/x = 0 was imposed. Inserting eqs. (39) and (40) into eq. (37)

yields after integration

u0 v 0

=1+

u2

2

Cf

2

d

1

2

y 1+ n

.

dx 1 + n 2 + n

(41)

1

n

d

Cf =

2

(n + 1) (n + 2) dx

(42)

which inserted into eq. (41) finally gives the Reynolds stress distribution as

y 1+ n2

u0 v 0

=

1

.

u2

(43)

Equation (43) is the new power-type distribution of the Reynolds shear stress

across in ZPGTBL using the new integral power-law solution. Equation (43)

for + = 7630 (n = 7.24) is compared in Fig. 7a with the experimental data

of Klebanhoff (Hinze 1975), resulting in a good agreement for 0 < y/ < 0.7.

For y/ > 0.7, there is a slight departure of predictions from the observations

caused by the values of u/x and u2 /x obtained from the power-law model.

Unauthenticated

Download Date | 2/22/15 5:23 PM

1009

Fig. 7. Comparison of experimental data with the proposed power-law theoretical distributions of (a) Reynolds shear stress, and (b) eddy viscosity.

model yields u/y 6= 0.

The eddy viscosity t is defined by

t =

/

.

u/y

(44)

y 1+ n2 y 1 n1

t

n

=

(1

+

n)C

1

.

f

U

2

(45)

Equation (45) for + = 7630 (Cf = 0.0023) is compared with the experimental data from Schlichting and Gersten (2000) in Fig. 7b. It is evident

that the order of magnitude of the maximum dimensionless eddy viscosity,

t /(U ) 0.022, corresponds closely with the experimental data. However,

the power-law model displaces the position of maximum dimensionless eddy

viscosity roughly from y/ 0.3 to 0.5. However, the results obtained from the

proposed power-law model are in good agreement with those from a wall-wake

model reported by Schlichting and Gersten (2000), which provides a slightly

better fit to experimental data.

5. CONCLUSIONS

Based on conservation of mass and skin friction in a turbulent boundary layer

with any wake term, a new theory for the power-law velocity profile is proposed. The new power-law produces the same skin friction coefficient and displacement thickness as those obtained from the wall-wake model. The new

Unauthenticated

Download Date | 2/22/15 5:23 PM

1010

generalized form allows their use for any pressure gradient within the boundary

layer. The present power-law theory allows advancement in integral momentum

computation of boundary layer flows, proposing a unique power-law relationship for the entire boundary layer. The present theory has been verified by the

experimental data for ZPGTBL, and a good agreement has been found for the

velocity profiles (both in absolute and defect forms) and skin friction coefficient.

The developed theory was used to critically review estimates of the boundary

layer thickness profiles, indicating the dependence on the nominal limit considered for the boundary layer thickness. From the proposed power-law model, the

Reynolds shear stress and eddy viscosity distributions are derived, and they are

also found to be in good agreement with the experimental data.

References

Afzal, N. (1996), Wake layer in turbulent boundary layer with pressure gradient: A new

approach. In: K. Gersten (ed.) Iutam Symposium on Asymptotic Methods for

Turbulent Shear Flows at High Reynolds Numbers: Proceedings of the Iutam

Symposium Hes, Springer, London, 95-118.

Afzal, N. (2001a), Power law and log law velocity profiles in fully developed turbulent

pipe flows: equivalent relations at large Reynolds numbers, Acta Mech. 151,

171-183, DOI: 10.1007/BF01246916.

Afzal, N. (2001b), Power law and log law velocity profiles in turbulent boundary layer

flows: equivalent relations at large Reynolds numbers, Acta Mech. 151, 195216, DOI: 10.1007/BF01246918.

Afzal, N. (2005), Analysis of power law and log law velocity profiles in overlap region of a turbulent wall jet, Proc. R. Soc. A 461, 2058, 1889-1910, DOI:

10.1098/rspa.2004.1400.

Afzal, N. (2007), Power law velocity profile in turbulent boundary layers

on transitional rough wall, J. Fluids Eng. 129, 8, 1083-1100, DOI:

10.1115/1.2746902.

Afzal, N. (2008), Power-law velocity profile in a turbulent Ekman layer on a transitional rough surface, Quart. J. Roy. Met. Soc. 134, 634, 1113-1125, DOI:

10.1002/qj.285.

Afzal, N., A. Seena, and A. Bushra (2006), Power law turbulent velocity profile

in transitional rough pipes, J. Fluids Eng. 128, 3, 548-558, DOI: 10.1115/

1.2175161.

Afzal, N., A. Seena, and A. Bushra (2011), Discussion to velocity profile and flow resistance models for developing chute flow, J. Hydraul. Eng. 137, 8 (in press).

Balachandar, R., D. Bakely, and J. Bugg (2002), Friction velocity and power law velocity profile in smooth and rough shallow open channel flows, Can. J. Civ.

Eng. 29, 256-266, DOI: 10.1139/L01-093.

Unauthenticated

Download Date | 2/22/15 5:23 PM

1011

Barenblatt, G.I. (1993), Scaling laws for fully developed turbulent shear flows.

Part I: Basic hypothesis and analysis, J. Fluid Mech. 248, 513-520, DOI:

10.1017/S0022112093000874.

Barenblatt, G.I., A.J. Chorin, and V.M. Prostokishin (2000a), A note on the intermediate region in turbulent boundary layers, Phys. Fluids 12, 2159-2161, DOI:

10.1063/1.1287613.

Barenblatt, G.I., A.J. Chorin, and V.M. Prostokishin (2000b), Self-similar intermediate structures in turbulent boundary layers at large Reynolds numbers,

J. Fluid Mech. 410, 263-283.

Buschmann, M.H., and M. Gad-el-Hak (2003a), Generalized logarithmic law and its

consequences, AIAA J. 41, 1, 40-48, DOI: 10.2514/2.1911.

Buschmann, M.H., and M. Gad-el-Hak (2003b), Debate concerning the meanvelocity profile of a turbulent boundary layer, AIAA J. 41, 4, 565-572, DOI:

10.2514/2.1994.

Buschmann, M.H., and M. Gad-el-Hak (2006), Recent developments in scaling of wall-bounded flows, Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 42, 5-6, 419-467, DOI:

10.1016/j.paerosci.2007.01.001.

Castro-Orgaz, O. (2009), Hydraulics of developing chute flow, J. Hydraul. Res. 47, 2,

185-194, DOI: 10.3826/jhr.2009.3462.

Castro-Orgaz, O. (2010), Velocity profile and flow resistance models for developing chute flow, J. Hydraul. Eng. 136, 7, 447-452, DOI: 10.1061/

(ASCE)HY.1943-7900.0000190.

Castro-Orgaz, O. (2011), Closure to velocity profile and flow resistance models for

developing chute flow, J. Hydraul. Eng. 137, 8 (in press).

Castro-Orgaz, O., and W.H. Hager (2010), Drawdown curve and turbulent boundary layer development for chute flow, J. Hydraul. Res. 48, 5, 591-602, DOI:

10.1080/00221686.2010.507337.

Chen, C.L. (1991), Unified theory on power laws for resistance, J. Hydraul. Eng. 117,

3, 371-389, DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(1991)117:3(371).

Coles, D.E. (1956), The law of the wake in the turbulent boundary layer, J. Fluid Mech.

1, 2, 191-226, DOI: 10.1017/S0022112056000135.

Dean, R.B. (1976), A single formula for the complete velocity profile in a turbulent

boundary layer, J. Fluids Eng. 98, 723-726.

George, W.K. (2007), Is there a universal log-law for turbulent wall-bounded flows?

Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. A 365, 789-806, DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2006.1941.

George, W.K., and L. Castillo (1997), The zero pressure-gradient turbulent boundary

layer, Appl. Mech. Rev. 50, 689-729, DOI: 10.1115/1.3101858.

Granville, P.S. (1976), Modified law of the wake for turbulent shear layers, J. Fluids

Eng. 98, 578-580.

Guo, J., P.Y. Julien, and R.N. Meroney (2005), Modified log-wake law for zero pressure gradient turbulent boundary layers, J. Hydraul. Res. 43, 421-430.

Hinze, J.O. (1975), Turbulence, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Koll, K. (2006), Parameterisation of the vertical velocity profile in the wall region over

rough surfaces. In: E.C.T.L. Alves et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the InternaUnauthenticated

Download Date | 2/22/15 5:23 PM

1012

2006, Lisbon, Portugal, Vol. 1, 163-171, Taylor & Francis, London, DOI:

10.1201/9781439833865.ch15.

Krogstad, P.A., R.A. Antonia, and L.W.B. Browne (1992), Comparison between

rough- and smooth-wall turbulent boundary layers, J. Fluid Mech. 245, 599617, DOI: 10.1017/S0022112092000594.

Meyer, Z. (2009), Modified logarithmic tachoida applied to sediment transport in a

river, Acta Geophys. 57, 2, 743-759, DOI: 10.2478/s11600-009-0064-z.

sterlund, J.M. (1999), Experimental studies of zero pressure-gradient turbulent

boundary layer flow, Ph.D. Thesis, Royal Inst. of Tech., Stockholm, Sweden.

sterlund, J.M., A.V. Johansson, H.M. Nagib, and M.H. Hites (2000), A note on the

overlap region in turbulent boundary layers, Phys. Fluids 12, 1, 1-4, DOI:

10.1063/1.870250.

Rotta, J.C. (1962), Turbulent boundary layers in incompressible flow, Prog. Aerosp.

Sci. 2, 1-220, DOI: 10.1016/0376-0421(62)90014-3.

Rowiski, P.M., J. Aberle, and A. Mazurczyk (2005), Shear velocity estimation in

hydraulic research, Acta Geophys. 53, 553-565.

Schlichting, H., and K. Gersten (2000), Boundary-Layer Theory, Springer, Berlin.

White, F.M. (1991), Viscous Fluid Flow, McGraw-Hill, New York.

Wosnik, M., L. Castillo, and W.K. George (2000), A theory for turbulent pipe and

channel flows, J. Fluid Mech. 421, 115-145.

Zagarola, M.V. (1996), Mean Flow Scaling of Turbulent Pipe Flow, Ph.D. Thesis,

Dept. of Mechanical and Aerospace Eng., Princeton Univ., Princeton, NJ.

Zagarola, M.V., and A.J. Smits (1998), Mean-flow scaling of turbulent pipe flow,

J. Fluid Mech. 373, 33-79.

Zagarola, M.V., A.E. Perry, and A.J. Smits (1997), Log laws or power laws: The scaling in the overlap region, Phys. Fluids 9, 2094-2100, DOI: 10.1063/1.869328.

Received 27 July 2010

Received in revised form 18 March 2011

Accepted 11 April 2011

Unauthenticated

Download Date | 2/22/15 5:23 PM

- Bradshaw - Fernholz - TurbulenceUploaded byAustin Fritzke
- hydraulic jumpUploaded byHarshad Shrigondekar
- An Introduction to Fluid Mechanics_Faith A. Morrison.pdfUploaded byGAURAV SHARMA
- Ch 08 Visc Flow Along a WallUploaded byali68fat64
- Tapan K. Sengupta - Instabilities of Flows and Transition to Turbulence (2012, CRC Press)Uploaded byOmar Horna Pinedo
- me mtechUploaded byStanly Kurian
- Boundary Layer CalculationUploaded byknowme73
- Elementary Fluid Dynamics 8. Bondary LayersUploaded byerick_ss
- 118IJMPERDAUG2018118Uploaded byTJPRC Publications
- Boundary Layers in Three DimensionsUploaded byflausen
- Mechanics of Real Fluids (2011) by M. RahmanUploaded byEmad Hamdy
- Modelos de Turbulencia (1)Uploaded byFabio Coffani
- SupportUploaded byjsdhilip
- Grand VivaUploaded byAbhishek Padmasale
- A Method for Measuring Skin Friction Drag on Flat PlateUploaded byfautrogelio
- chapter4.pdfUploaded byAntonija Birkic
- e 04112135Uploaded byInternational Journal of Engineering Inventions (IJEI)
- SYLLABUSUploaded byHamzah Khan
- PART-A-III-SEM-2-MARKS-FLUID-MECHANICS.pdfUploaded byBoopathi Shanmugam
- TP Entire NotesUploaded byhomiez99
- Mof Imp 2013Uploaded byjvinothupendra
- 2007_guptaUploaded byomkarexcell
- 9A01304 Fluid MechanicsUploaded bysivabharathamurthy

- Hydraulic jumpUploaded byjcasafranca
- sediment transportUploaded byjcasafranca
- Juncosa_HIdrogramasUploaded byjcasafranca
- Calculation of Contraction Coefficient Under Sluice GatesUploaded byjcasafranca
- Predicting Scour DepthUploaded byjcasafranca
- Disenos complejosUploaded byjcasafranca
- Criterios Diseno Losas Cimentacion Muros EstrucUploaded byjosejuanferro
- Chandra Mohan 1989 AUploaded byjcasafranca
- Tunel Hs2013 Lazaro 2Uploaded byjcasafranca
- USGS_Recession Groundwater RechargeUploaded byjcasafranca
- QIR000812Uploaded byjcasafranca
- Blake LarsenUploaded byjcasafranca
- PchUploaded byjcasafranca
- T BillSiriosPaperUploaded byjcasafranca
- DISEÑO_HIDRAULICO_TOMAS_LATERALESUploaded byhyunkun
- wama157-151Uploaded byjcasafranca

- Staad Standarfd Pipe SectionsUploaded byJohn Aries Almelor Sarza
- HVAC Handbook Part 3 Piping DesignUploaded byTanveer
- Theory of Flow Through PipesUploaded bywiwiz2000
- Trabajo de HidraulicaUploaded bylagb2004
- Sp Stud 04 Bombas Centrifugas Vent Compr1Uploaded byDarwin Rivera Estrada
- Mankenberg Float ValvesUploaded bycartar
- Marine Auxiliary Machinery[1]Uploaded byKris
- Bomba e Motor Sauer DanfossUploaded byalbsalves8645
- guide_sur_les_postes_de_refoulement_et_relevement.docUploaded bykhalid597
- Lp 6ty80 - Port YANMARUploaded bytazjuan1
- Guide to Steel Pipes for Vessels- Channels Miscellaneous ExcelUploaded byAlmario Sagun
- 1- Cabezal de Pozo y Manifold - TRABAJO FINALUploaded byWilman Ardila Barbosa
- Flowmeter DemonstrationUploaded byNajwa Ghazali
- Nominal Pipe SizeUploaded byNAYEEM
- ES-LF150AUploaded byWatts
- Development of a Bellmouth Airflow Measurement Technique for Turbine Engine Ground Test FacilitiesUploaded byNicolas Dubois
- Hard Shut In.pptUploaded byWCG
- NEXT Integrated Production and Well OperationsUploaded bydoombuggy
- BOMBEO HIDRAULICOUploaded bymarcelo espindola
- Pipe Thread NPT and BSPT Fittings CompatibilityUploaded byEduardo
- GER 3443 SZ RT 101_04 Attachment 13Uploaded bytak-1963
- Series TWH Installation InstructionsUploaded byWatts
- P_IDsInstrumentationUploaded bynarasimharaja
- Gen Tube Und Pipes Sizes 5th Edition 18Uploaded bymorganflexer
- Weicco -Flexible Connector.pdfUploaded bymsmrizhwan
- RskUploaded byprasobha
- Flowmeter Selection 2005Uploaded bywado11
- fd2013_prog.pdfUploaded byJay Prakash Dulhani
- Steam Loss Calculations_Rev 0Uploaded byAnonymous A4NHI5
- Internal Flow PresentationUploaded bywally55bear