ACTA MECHANICA

Acta Mechanica 151,195-216 (2001)

9 Springer-Verlag 2001

Power law and log law velocity profiles

in turbulent boundary-layer flow:
equivalent relations at large Reynolds numbers
N. Afzal, Aligarh, India

(Received January 10, 2000; revised March 13, 2000)

Summary. The open equations of a turbulent boundary layer subjected to a pressure gradient analysed
for classical two layers (inner wall and outer wake), while matched in the overlap region of MAX through
the Millikan-Kolmogorov hypothesis leads to an open functional equation, and its classical solution for
the velocity distribution is the log. region. It is shown here that the same open functional equation also
predicts a power law velocity distribution and a power law skin friction in the overlap region. The uni-
formly valid solution for the composite wall power law and wake velocity profile is obtained. The connec-
tion between the power law and the classical log. law solutions of the open functional equation is ana-
lyzed. At large Reynolds number, the power law solutions reduce to the classical log. law solutions, and
the equivalence predicts a certain relationship between the constants in power and log. laws. The results
are compared with the experimental data.

1 Introduction

The recent work of Barenblatt [1], [2], highlighted by Cipra [3], proposed that the power law
velocity profile typifies incomplete self similarity and emphasized that the result, while differ-
ent from classical log. law has an equally rigorous basis. Further, the power law velocity pro-
file is more fundamental, and its envelope contains the log. law of the wall at that Reynolds
number. He considered a single (wall) layer flow in a pipe and argued that it constitutes the
"main body of flow". It appears to be supported by Nikuradse's [4] pipe data. The proposal
of Barenblatt [1] is reviving an issue already raised by Prandtl [5] that the log. law is the well-
known limiting value obtained from the power law

u = D l y ~ + D2 (1)

by making a tend to zero, D1 ~ + o c and D2 ~ - e c , where u is the axial velocity profile and
y is the normal distance from the wall. This implies that the power law becomes the log. law
at sufficiently large Reynolds numbers. Zagarola and Smits [6] pointed out that the scenario
of Prandtl's speculation does not appear to be the case, and it would become consistent if
the Reynolds number dependence was replaced by the wall variable y+ dependence. One of
the aims of the present work is to rationalize the issue raised by Prandtl. Further, the pipe
flow velocity profile exhibits a very weak defect layer, so a more severe test for the power law
profile would be a high Reynolds number boundary layer (where the overlap would not con-
stitute what Barenblatt calls the "main body of flow", especially in adverse pressure gradi-
196 N. Afzal

ents). Such a test has however not been carried out, which calls for accurate experimental
data in high Reynolds number turbulent boundary layer flows.
Nikuradse [4] for pipe data determined the power index c~ and the multiplicative constant
C in the power law relation:

u+ = Cy+ , (2)

U
: --,
~T
(3)
yU~
y+ /J
, (4)

but no correlation with the Reynolds number Re = 5?d/u was proposed [7], [8]. Here (u+, y+)
are the wall variables, u is the kinematic viscosity, u~ is the friction velocity, U is the average
velocity, U~l is the velocity at pipe axis and d is the pipe diameter. The old idea was recently
promoted, the correlations of c~ and C were determined by Barenbtatt [t] and Kailasnath [9]
for pipe data of Nikuradse [4]. Further, Zagarola, Perry and Smits [10] proposed c~ and C cor-
relations for super-pipe data of Zagarola [1 t]. However, in a later work Zagarola and Smits
[6] proposed c~ = 0.137 and C = 8.70 as universal numbers.
In a turbulent boundary layer, the velocity profile power law (2) may also be expressed as

' (5)

c . (6)
~T

The momentum integral method has been considered (see Schlichting [7], Duncan et al. [8])
where the constant C in relation (6) was adopted from pipe resistance formula proposed by
Blasius with c~ = 1/7, C = 8.74, and the results compare well with data in the range
fi{x < 6 • 10 6, where Rx = xU~/u is the Reynolds number based on the streamwise distance
x. Further, for c~ = 1/9, C = 10.6 the integral method results in the range 106 < R~ < 108 fit
closely with data and agree with the Prandtl-Schlichting relation [8].
In the boundary layer with zero pressure gradient, George and Castillo [12] in addition to
the inner wall layer also considered an outer layer where the outer velocity scale is the free
stream velocity. Matching of the outer and inner layers predicts a power law velocity profile
and power law skin fi:iction. However, in this situation the outer layer slip velocity at the wall
turns out to be zero, and certain modifications are needed in their [12] outer layer, described
in Appendix A. Djenidi et al. [13] in the boundary-layer flow (following the work of Baren-
blatt [1] on pipe flow) proposed c~ = 1.5 lnR6, where R~ = U~5/u. Barenblatt, Chorin, Hald
and Prostokishin [14] in the turbulent boundary-layer proposed two different self-similar
unique power law relations based on inner variables (see also Hites [15]) where the inner
region includes the conventional log. region and another layer at the beginning of the outer
region which peels off from log (inner) region. The power index and multiplication constant
(o~i and C~) in the inner power law region are more Reynolds number dependent then those
constants (C~oand Co) in the outer layer power law region. Further, it was argued that a single
Reynolds number Reo is not sufficient to characterize the zero pressure gradient turbulent
boundary layer, and a "dual" Reynolds number should be considered in order to account for
two distinct power law regions in the boundary layer, Zagarola and Smits' [16] data for a tur-
bulent boundary layer proposed the universal power law constants (c~ = 0.137 and C = 8.70)
independent of the Reynolds number. One of the limitations in all these works [6], [14]- [16] is