Faculty of Engineering and Technology

Department of Mechanical Engineering and Mechatronics

Power Laboratory
ENME411
Section: 1
Week 9
Experiment No’s: 6
Experiment Title: BOUNDARY LAYER.

Prepared By:
Malik Karjeh, 1172696

Partner’s:
Othman Essam, 1150190
Abdalllah Abed

Date of Performance: 08/06/2023

Date of Submit: 24/06/2023
Abstract:

This experiment aims to study and understand the formation and characteristics of the boundary
layer for smoke and rough surfaces. Using pitot tubes, the dynamic pressure of the free stream
and boundary layer was measured to calculate the velocities and determine the boundary layer
thickness. Displacement thickness, and the momentum thickness. The experiment contains air
flow over both smooth and rough surfaces to observe the effects of surface conditions on
boundary layer formation. The results showed that the smooth surface had a lower friction
coefficient, and the relationship between the friction coefficient and the velocity of the boundary
layer was inversely proportional. The experiment provided valuable insights into the effect of
surface conditions on boundary layer behavior, offering practical implications for optimizing
engineering applications.
Objectives:
1. To determined and study the velocity of boundary layer.
2. To find the boundary layer thickness.
3. To show the effects of different flow conditions on boundary layer.
4. To discuss the actual effects of the results found.

Calculations:
Part A: Smooth Surface.
The data used in these calculations is from run 6 at y=16 mm.
To find the free stream velocity it will be used the following equation:

U=
√ 2 P Airbox
ρ Air
(1)

Where:
P Airbox : The airbox dynamic pressure (Pa).

ρ Air : The air density (1.204 Kg/ m3 ).

U=
√ 2∗1740
1.204
=53.76 m/s

The boundary layer velocity calculated be this equation:

u=
√ 2 P ppit
ρ Air
(2)

Where:
P ppit : The boundary layer dynamic pressure (Pa).

u=
√ 2∗400
1.204
=25.78 m/s

The ratio of the velocity of air at pitot tube with the stream velocity:
u 25.78
= =0.48
U 53.76

The complement of the pitot tube with the fan velocity ratio:
 u
1− =1−0.4 8=0.52
U

The velocity ratio with its complement:

( Uu )(1− Uu )=0.48∗0.52=0.25
From graphs plotted in Excel, it obtained equations where it was needed to find the following:

1. The Displacement Thickness:

L
δ =∫ 1−
¿

0
( u
U )
dy (3)

Where:
¿
δ : The displacement thickness (m).

L: The Length of plate from leading edge to traverse section, (L=0.265 m).

The equation from graph is:

3 2
y=−0.0008 x +0.0423 x −0.8079 x +5.7356
¿
δ =1.492m m
2. The Momentum Thickness:
L
θ=∫
0
u
U
1−
u
U (
dy (4) )
The equation from graph is:
2
y=−0.0008 x +0.0277 x +0.0124

θ=0.0043 mm

3. The Shape Factor:

¿
δ
H= (5)
θ
H=347

4. The Shear Stress:

 du
τ w =u (6)
dy

The equation from graph is:

3 2
y=0.0408 x −2.2733 x +43.43 x−254.6

τ w =66 Pa

5. The Skin friction coefficient:

τw
Cf = (7)
1 2
ρU
2
66
Cf = =0.0379
1
∗1.204∗( 53.7)2
2

Part B: Rough Surface.

 The data used in these calculations is from run 9 at y=12 mm .

 The equations used in this part are the same as those used in the previous part.

The free stream velocity

U=
√ 2∗1740
1.204
=53.76 m/s

The boundary layer velocity:

u=
√ 2∗300
1.204
=22.32 m/s

The ratio of the velocity of air at pitot tube with the stream velocity:
u 22.32
= =0.4 15
U 53.76

The complement of the pitot tube with the fan velocity ratio:

u
1− =1−0.4 15=0.5 85
U

The velocity ratio with its complement:

 ( Uu )(1− Uu )=0.4 15∗0.5 85=0.2 43
From graphs plotted in Excel, it obtained equations where it was needed to find the following:

1. The Displacement Thickness:

The equation from graph is:

3 2
y=−0.0002 x +0.0151 x −0.3826 x+ 3.7752
¿
δ =0.987 mm
2. The Momentum Thickness:

The equation from graph is: y = 0.0002x3 - 0.0103x2 + 0.2285x - 1.4153

3 2
y=0.0002 x −0.0103 x +0.2285 x−1.4153

θ=0.367 m m

3. The Shape Factor:

0.987
H= =2.7
0.367

4. The Shear Stress:

The equation from graph is:

3 2
y=0.0113 x −0.8132 x +20.569 x−149.2

τ w =38.82 Pa

5. The Skin friction coefficient:

66
Cf = =0.05
1 2
∗1.204∗( 53.7)
2

Results:
Part A: Smooth Surface.
 P pitottube u
y
(mm)
P Airbox
(mbar )
Inital
(mbar )
P pitottube
(mbar )
P Airbox
(Pa)
P pitottube
(Pa)
U max
(m/ s)
u
(m/ s)
U 1−
u
U ( Uu )(1− Uu )
 0.42
15.14 17.4 12.2 3.2 1740 320 53.76 23.06 9 0.571 0.245
0.43
15.2 17.4 12.25 3.25 1740 325 53.76 23.24 2 0.568 0.245
0.44
15.4 17.4 12.51 3.51 1740 351 53.76 24.15 9 0.551 0.247
0.46
15.6 17.4 12.8 3.8 1740 380 53.76 25.12 7 0.533 0.249
0.47
15.8 17.4 12.95 3.95 1740 395 53.76 25.62 6 0.524 0.249
0.47
16 17.4 13 4 1740 400 53.76 25.78 9 0.521 0.250
0.48
16.2 17.4 13.1 4.1 1740 410 53.76 26.10 5 0.515 0.250
0.48
16.4 17.4 13.15 4.15 1740 415 53.76 26.26 8 0.512 0.250
0.49
16.6 17.4 13.2 4.2 1740 420 53.76 26.41 1 0.509 0.250
0.49
16.8 17.4 13.3 4.3 1740 430 53.76 26.73 7 0.503 0.250
0.50
17 17.4 13.4 4.4 1740 440 53.76 27.04 3 0.497 0.250
0.50
17.2 17.4 13.5 4.5 1740 450 53.76 27.34 9 0.491 0.250
0.51
17.4 17.4 13.6 4.6 1740 460 53.76 27.64 4 0.486 0.250
0.52
17.6 17.4 13.7 4.7 1740 470 53.76 27.94 0 0.480 0.250
0.52
17.8 17.4 13.8 4.8 1740 480 53.76 28.24 5 0.475 0.249
0.53
18 17.4 13.9 4.9 1740 490 53.76 28.53 1 0.469 0.249
0.53
18.2 17.4 14 5 1740 500 53.76 28.82 6 0.464 0.249
0.54
18.4 17.4 14.1 5.1 1740 510 53.76 29.11 1 0.459 0.248
0.54
18.6 17.4 14.2 5.2 1740 520 53.76 29.39 7 0.453 0.248
0.55
18.8 17.4 14.3 5.3 1740 530 53.76 29.67 2 0.448 0.247
0.55
19 17.4 14.4 5.4 1740 540 53.76 29.95 7 0.443 0.247
0.56
19.2 17.4 14.45 5.45 1740 545 53.76 30.09 0 0.440 0.246
0.56
19.4 17.4 14.5 5.5 1740 550 53.76 30.23 2 0.438 0.246
19.6 17.4 14.6 5.6 1740 560 53.76 30.50 0.56 0.433 0.245
 7
0.57
19.8 17.4 14.8 5.8 1740 580 53.76 31.04 7 0.423 0.244
0.58
20 17.4 14.9 5.9 1740 590 53.76 31.31 2 0.418 0.243
0.58
20.2 17.4 15 6 1740 600 53.76 31.57 7 0.413 0.242
0.59
20.4 17.4 15.1 6.1 1740 610 53.76 31.83 2 0.408 0.242
0.59
20.6 17.4 15.2 6.2 1740 620 53.76 32.09 7 0.403 0.241
0.60
20.8 17.4 15.35 6.35 1740 635 53.76 32.48 4 0.396 0.239
0.60
21 17.4 15.4 6.4 1740 640 53.76 32.61 6 0.394 0.239
0.60
21.2 17.4 15.4 6.4 1740 640 53.76 32.61 6 0.394 0.239
Table (1): The Results of The Smooth Surface.

Table (2): The Results of The Smooth Surface.

¿
Displacement Thickness (δ ) (mm) 1.492

Momentum Thickness (θ ) (mm) 0.0043

Shear Stress (τ w) (kPa) 66

Shape Factor ( H ) 346.9767

Skin Friction Coefficient (C f ) 0.03793

 1-u/U vs. y
0.600

0.550f(x) = − 0.000759063738865578 x³ + 0.0422847108102349 x² − 0.807823846871978 x + 5.73560349606927

0.500
1-u/U

0.450

0.400

0.350
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
y (mm)

Figure 1:The Displacement Thickness Chart.

(u/U)*(1-u/U) vs. y
0.252
0.250
f(x) = − 0.000805599007535963 x² + 0.0276607840161812 x + 0.0124408608586165
0.248
0.246
(u/U)*(1-u/U)

0.244
0.242
0.240
0.238
0.236
0.234
0.232
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
y (mm)

Figure 2:The Momentum Thickness Chart.

 u vs. y
34.00

32.00 f(x) = 0.0408088751219642 x³ − 2.27331565805283 x² + 43.4303218551995 x − 254.596079094816

30.00
u (m/s)

28.00

26.00

24.00

22.00
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
y (mm)

Figure 3:The Relationship Between the Boundary Layer Velocity and Pitot Tube Displacement (Shear Stress).

u/U vs. y
0.650

0.600 f(x) = 0.000759063738865569 x³ − 0.0422847108102345 x² + 0.80782384687197 x − 4.73560349606922

0.550
u/U

0.500

0.450

0.400
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
y (mm)

Figure 4:The Relationship Between the Boundary Layer to Free Stream Velocity Ratio and Pitot Tube Displacement.
 Part B: Rough Surface.

P pitottube u
y
(mm)
P Airbox
(mbar )
Inital
(mbar )
P pitottube
(mbar )
P Airbox
(Pa)
P pitottube
(Pa)
U max
(m/ s)
u
(m/ s)
U 1−
u
U ( Uu )(1− Uu )
0.33
16.1 17.4 10.9 1.9 1740 190 53.76 17.77 0 0.670 0.2213
0.35
16.3 17.4 11.2 2.2 1740 220 53.76 19.12 6 0.644 0.2291
0.37
16.5 17.4 11.4 2.4 1740 240 53.76 19.97 1 0.629 0.2335
0.37
16.7 17.4 11.5 2.5 1740 250 53.76 20.38 9 0.621 0.2354
0.37
16.9 17.4 11.5 2.5 1740 250 53.76 20.38 9 0.621 0.2354
0.39
17.1 17.4 11.7 2.7 1740 270 53.76 21.18 4 0.606 0.2387
0.40
17.3 17.4 11.8 2.8 1740 280 53.76 21.57 1 0.599 0.2402
0.40
17.5 17.4 11.9 2.9 1740 290 53.76 21.95 8 0.592 0.2416
0.41
17.7 17.4 12 3 1740 300 53.76 22.32 5 0.585 0.2428
0.42
17.9 17.4 12.1 3.1 1740 310 53.76 22.69 2 0.578 0.2439
18.1 17.4 12.2 3.2 1740 320 53.76 23.06 0.42 0.571 0.2449
 9
0.44
18.3 17.4 12.4 3.4 1740 340 53.76 23.77 2 0.558 0.2466
0.44
18.5 17.4 12.5 3.5 1740 350 53.76 24.11 8 0.552 0.2473
0.46
18.7 17.4 12.8 3.8 1740 380 53.76 25.12 7 0.533 0.2489
0.47
18.9 17.4 12.9 3.9 1740 390 53.76 25.45 3 0.527 0.2493
0.47
19.1 17.4 13 4 1740 400 53.76 25.78 9 0.521 0.2496
0.48
19.3 17.4 13.1 4.1 1740 410 53.76 26.10 5 0.515 0.2498
0.49
19.5 17.4 13.2 4.2 1740 420 53.76 26.41 1 0.509 0.2499
0.49
19.7 17.4 13.3 4.3 1740 430 53.76 26.73 7 0.503 0.2500
0.50
19.9 17.4 13.4 4.4 1740 440 53.76 27.04 3 0.497 0.2500
0.50
20.1 17.4 13.5 4.5 1740 450 53.76 27.34 9 0.491 0.2499
0.51
20.3 17.4 13.6 4.6 1740 460 53.76 27.64 4 0.486 0.2498
0.52
20.5 17.4 13.7 4.7 1740 470 53.76 27.94 0 0.480 0.2496
0.52
20.7 17.4 13.8 4.8 1740 480 53.76 28.24 5 0.475 0.2494
0.53
20.9 17.4 13.9 4.9 1740 490 53.76 28.53 1 0.469 0.2491
0.53
21.1 17.4 13.9 4.9 1740 490 53.76 28.53 1 0.469 0.2491
0.53
21.3 17.4 14 5 1740 500 53.76 28.82 6 0.464 0.2487
0.54
21.5 17.4 14.1 5.1 1740 510 53.76 29.11 1 0.459 0.2483
0.54
21.7 17.4 14.2 5.2 1740 520 53.76 29.39 7 0.453 0.2478
0.54
21.9 17.4 14.2 5.2 1740 520 53.76 29.39 7 0.453 0.2478
0.55
22.1 17.4 14.3 5.3 1740 530 53.76 29.67 2 0.448 0.2473
0.55
22.3 17.4 14.4 5.4 1740 540 53.76 29.95 7 0.443 0.2467
Table (3): The Results of The Rough Surface.
 Table (4): The Results of The Rough Surface.

¿
Displacement Thickness (δ ) (mm) 0.987

Momentum Thickness (θ ) (mm) 0.0662

Shear Stress (τ w) (kPa) 83.82

Shape Factor ( H ) 14.9094

Skin Friction Coefficient (C f ) 0.04817

1-(u/U) vs. y
0.700

f(x) 0.650
= − 0.000209719986259192 x³ + 0.0151266335349375 x² − 0.382595205652247 x + 3.77523898381663

0.600

0.550
1-u/U

0.500

0.450

0.400

0.350
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
y (mm)

Figure 5:The Displacement Thickness Chart.

 (u/U)*(1-(u/U)) vs. y
0.2550

0.2500
f(x) = 0.000154368334401569 x³ − 0.0103467219337262 x² + 0.228469365057437 x − 1.41529912274811
0.2450
(u/U)*(1-u/U)

0.2400

0.2350

0.2300

0.2250

0.2200
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
y (mm)

Figure 6:The Momentum Thickness Chart.

u VS y
33.00

f(x)31.00
= 0.0112749908757623 x³ − 0.813239873459819 x² + 20.5691290076096 x − 149.202728737164
29.00
27.00
25.00
u (m/s)

23.00
21.00
19.00
17.00
15.00
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
y (mm)

Figure 7:The Relationship Between the Boundary Layer Velocity and Pitot Tube Displacement (Shear Stress).
 (u/U) VS y
0.650
0.600
f(x) = 0.0002097199863 x³ − 0.0151266335349 x² + 0.38259520565225 x − 2.7752389838166
0.550
0.500
u/U

0.450
0.400
0.350
0.300
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
y (mm)

Figure 8:The Relationship Between the Boundary Layer to Free Stream Velocity Ratio and Pitot Tube Displacement.

Discussion of Results:
By looking at the results collected in Table 1 and in Figures 1 to 4, it’s shown that the
displacement thickness decreases as the distance from the surface increases, which refers to the
additional thickness of free stream velocity that can be added to mitigate the mass flow rate loss
caused by the boundary layer. Since mass flow rate is directly related to flow velocity, an
increase in velocity results in a smaller mass flow rate loss at a particular point, as shown in
Figure 1.. Similar to the previous example, the momentum thickness, which compensates for the
momentum loss due to the boundary layer’s velocity reduction, decreases with distance from the
surface. This is due to the boundary layer velocity approaching the free stream velocity, leading
to a decrease in momentum loss, as shown in Fig. 2. The velocity of the boundary layer increases
as the measurement is taken further from the surface. The ratio of boundary layer velocity to free
stream velocity is roughly 0.53, which doesn’t go with the theoretical expectations. The
boundary layer is defined as the thickness between zero velocity at the surface and 99% of the
free stream velocity, as shown in figures 3 and 4.
For table (3), reflect the same trends observed in table (1) for smooth surfaces, and figures 5
through 8 exhibit the identical patterns seen in figures 1 through 4. However, it was observed
that the velocity values for the rough surface were lower compared with the smooth surface. This
is due to the flow losing velocity as it encounters surface imperfections, resulting in small
effects. Furthermore, the values for displacement thickness and momentum thickness were
generally higher for rough surfaces compared with smooth surfaces. This is due to the fact that
the boundary velocities are smaller on the rough surface, leading to greater losses in mass and
momentum flow rates. Consequently, a larger additional thickness of free stream velocity flow is
required to compensate for these losses.
Tables (2) and (4) show the displacement thickness, momentum thickness, shape factor, and
friction coefficient. There are small differences in these values caused by the change in the free
stream air velocity in the air box. When comparing the values for smooth and rough surfaces, it
was found that the displacement thickness and momentum thickness were greater for rough
surfaces. This can be attributed to the rough surface having higher boundary layer velocities,
resulting in a smaller mass flow rate and momentum to compensate for. The shape factor, which
represents the ratio between displacement and momentum thickness, was also found to be greater
for smooth surfaces compared with rough surfaces. The shear stress and the friction coefficient
for the smooth surface were higher than those for the rough surface.

Conclusion:

This experiment aimed to study the formation of the boundary layer and its parameters on
smooth and rough surfaces. The results showed that the rough surface had a thicker boundary
layer and greater mass flow rate and momentum loss compared to the smooth surface. However,
some discrepancies were observed in the shear stress and friction coefficient values, which were
contrary to theoretical expectations. To improve future experiments, different surfaces with
varying roughness factors should be considered, and obtaining more readings to accurately
measure the boundary layer thickness is recommended. Overall, the experiment achieved its
objectives but encountered errors, suggesting the need for further investigation and refinement.
References: