See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/329443489

Munson, Young and Okiishi's Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics, 8th Edition

(2016) – Book review

Technical Report · December 2018

CITATIONS READS

0 452

1 author:

Gur Mittelman
Tel Aviv University
29 PUBLICATIONS   797 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

High-Performance Solar Spectral Beam Splitting: Agrivoltaics View project

High-Performance Solar Spectral Beam Splitting: Alternative Fuels Production View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gur Mittelman on 25 April 2020.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Munson, Young and Okiishi's Fundamentals of Fluid
Mechanics, 8th Edition (2016) – Review
Gur Mittelman, gur.mittelman@gmail.com

Synopsis
The fundamental principles of fluid mechanics were developed for centuries now. Thus, if
we ever get a chance to challenge the very basic laws of this discipline, well, it could be
quite exciting. In the excellent textbook by Munson et al., this material is delivered with
great detail and patience, while uncompromising the degree of clarity. However, fluid
mechanics is a very cunning field, and the deep observations provided in this book give an
opportunity to think it over again. The current review comes across some of the
fundamental concepts, not just in the current textbook, but in the field as general (see for
example note 4). The following annotations are definitely not recommended for the faint-
hearted readers.

Review
1. Reynolds transport theorem, Section 4.4.1 equation (4.19) p. 182.

DBsys 
Dt
  bd  CS bV  ndA
t CV
It seems that the (partial) time derivative of the first term on the right side could be
replaced with ordinary derivative i.e.
DBsys d
  bd   bV  ndA
Dt dt CV CS

because any integration over the entire space of the control volume (fixed or moving,
nondeformed or deformed) will remove the spatial dependence, resulting in an
expression which is only time dependent.

All rights reserved © 2017 Gur Mittelman

1
2. Finite control volume analysis – linear momentum. Pressure forces Example 5.10
p.212.
It seems that the vertical atmospheric pressure forces on the control volume do not
cancel out since part of the vane is attached to the ground (no atmospheric pressure
force there).

Figure E5.10.

3. Finite control volume analysis – angular momentum equation. Section 5.2.3

equation (5.38) p. 227.

D D

Dt sys
(r  V)d  
sys
Dt
(r  V)d

Replacing the sequential order of differentiation and integration in this equation could
be not trivial because of the Leibnitz rule:

where the system boundaries could be deforming and time dependent.

Section 5.2.3 (derivation of the moment of momentum equation) is presented in a

different manner compared to section 5.2.1 (linear momentum), beginning the
analysis at the particle level, rather than using the integration of the entire system
directly, such as in equation (5.19).

All rights reserved © 2017 Gur Mittelman

2
4. Finite control volume analysis – linear vs. angular momentum equations for the
Pelton wheel.
Using the moment of momentum equation (12.50), the torque on the Pelton wheel
is
Tshaft  mrm (U  V1 )(1  cos )
So I the force on the vane (blade, cup) becomes
()Tshaft
Fcup   m(V1  U)(1  cos )
rm

Figure 12.26.

However, if we implement the linear momentum equation for a moving control

volume (5.29):

 WW  ndA   F
CS
contents of the
control volume

on the Pelton wheel, we get (see also solution for problem 5.64b in the 6th edition
solution manual):
FCV  W12 A1  2(W2 cos )W2 A 2  A1W12 (cos   1)

where we used W1  W2 from the continuity equation,  W  ndA  0 .

CS

Substituting W1  V1  U , the force on the cup becomes:

FA  Fcup  FCV  A1 (V1  U) 2 (1  cos ) 
m
 (V1  U) 2 (1  cos )
V1
which is very different than the result we obtained above from the moment of
momentum equation.
Is this a contradiction?

All rights reserved © 2017 Gur Mittelman

3
5. Finite control volume analysis – energy equation. Normal stress power, Section
5.3.1 p. 234.
According to equation (5.61), the normal stress used in the evaluation of the normal
stress power transfer is:
  p
However, from the stress-deformation relationships, the normal stress includes a
viscosity term as well [equation (6.125a)]:
u
xx  p  2
x
where both of the terms on the right side of the equation are further considered for
the derivation of the Navier-Stokes equations.

6. Finite control volume analysis – energy equation. Viscous dissipation Section 5.3.2
p. 238.
The one-dimensional energy equation for steady-in-the-mean flow is given in
equation (5.67):
p p V 2  Vin2
m[u out  u in  ( ) out  ( )in  out  g(z out  z in )]  Q net  W  0
  2 in

Where the work rate term includes both shaft and viscous (shear, tangential) effects
e.g. W  Wshaft  Wtangential stress .

Now, consider a fully developed, incompressible flow in an adiabatic, horizontal pipe.

If we select the control volume to be the pipe surface, we have no viscous power
transfer, Wtangential stress  0 because the velocity at the pipe (solid) surface is zero. The
energy equation then becomes:

p out  pin Vout  Vin

2 2

m[u out  u in    g( z out  z in )]  Q net  W  0

 2 in

or
pin  pout
u out  u in  c v (Tout  Tin ) 

Thus, the fluid is heated due to the pressure drop, which is directly related to the wall
4 w
shear stress (friction), p  from the momentum balance [equation (8.5)].
D
Hence, fluid heating is related to friction despite the fact that viscous power transfer
is obscured. This is quite tricky.
A similar argument may valid for example 5.22: temperature change in a waterfall.
Viscous power transfer is neglected but yet, the water in section 2 is heated due to
friction.

All rights reserved © 2017 Gur Mittelman

4
7. Similitude based on governing differential equations. Section 7.10 p.385.

It is argued that dimensional analysis may go wrong when important variables are
omitted. However, it seems that this can also go the other way around as dimensional
analysis often yields more dimensionless groups than required due to lack of
information, which is available in the governing equations. Also, in boundary layer
problems, it looks like nondimensionalization could yield false prediction for the
functional dependence of local parameters.

Consider the following dimensionless boundary layer equations for a flat plate in
steady, laminar, incompressible 2D parallel flow:

u * v *
 0
x * y *
u * u * 1  2u *
u*  v* 
x * y * Re L y *2

where
u v
u*  v* =
V V
x y
x*  y* =
L L
VL
Re L 

Hence,

u*  (x*, y*, ReL ) and

u *
 (x*, Re L )
y * y*0

Now, the wall shear stress is

u V u *
w   
y y0
L y * y*0

And finally, the local friction coefficient is

 2 u *
cf  w  or
1 2 ReL y * y*0
V
2
cf  (x*, ReL ) i.e. 3  groups,

Which is quite different than the analytical solution e.g. Blasius:

All rights reserved © 2017 Gur Mittelman

5
 cf  (Rex ) i.e. 2  groups only

Thus, the result obtained by nondimensionalizing the governing equations is probably

false, providing one extra  group.

A possible explanation could be that the dimension L, which is apparent in the

governing equations normalization (x*=x/L, etc.), does not really have an influence on
the local wall shear stress or solution cf (x).
1
The local wall shear stress scales as w  (equation 9.28) where (x) is the
(x)
boundary layer thickness which develops from the leading edge [say (x  0)  0 ] and
further the downstream. The boundary layer problem is similar to initial value
problems, where the solution is affected only from the past, but not by the future.
Thus, any local solution can’t be dependent on information available downstream
such as the plate length, L.

All rights reserved © 2017 Gur Mittelman

6
View publication stats