Professional Documents
Culture Documents
REVIEWS Further
Quick links to online content
LAMINAR SEPARATION
By S. N. BROWN AND K. STEWARTSON
Department of Mathematics, University College London
INTRODUCTION
the body, suddenly, and for no obvious reason, breaks away, and down
stream a region of eddyi ng flow, which is usually turbul ent even if the flow
elsewhere is laminar, is set up . Originating with Prandtl (1), repeated
by Brown University on 09/10/12. For personal use only.
45
46 BROWN & STEWARTSON
that the limit flow as R--'> 00 contains pathological features (see paragraph 2
of Part I, below) , then, the prospects for developing one are gloomy. Fur ther ,
fr om the practical aspect the possible onset of instability at values of R�100
cannot be ignored. Failing a rigorous theory we are restricted to consistency
by Brown University on 09/10/12. For personal use only.
t he post-separation flow past , for example, a circular cylinder (in which region
it is doubtful whether a steady solution exists) is t herefore understandable.
Attempts to clarify t he situation of infinite time and small but nonzero
by Brown University on 09/10/12. For personal use only.
viscosity have been made by reintroducing the time dependence and t racing
t he flow pattern from its initial, say impulsively-started, state. The work of
Blasius (4), and Goldstein & Rosenhead (5) , is now classic. At first t he bound
ary layer is t hin, and the displacement t hickness is O( yivt). Separation first
occurs at t he rear stagnation point when U",t/a=O(1), where U", is the
undisturbed fluid velocity and a t he radius of the cylinder, and then S, t he
point of vanishing skin friction, moves upstream. Although t he initial-value
problem reveals no peculiarity in the character of the point S, we infer t hat
its limiting position for large time divides t he flow about t he cylinder into
two parts: upst ream of S t he flow is potential except for a t hin viscous layer
whose displacement t hick ness, when divided by V1/2, tends to a fi nite l imit as
vt-+ <Xl, while downstream of S the notion of a boundary layer fails and t here
is probably no steady sol ution. S uch a prediction is not inconsistent with t he
conclusion of Proudman & Johnson (6), who have made an important
contribution towards t he understanding of t he flow near the rear stagnation
point of such a cylinder. Their solution of the unsteady Navier-Stokes
equations shows t hat at large times t here is an inner boundary layer of
reversed flow and the stagnation point is one of attachment. Outside this
inner layer there is a region in which the velocity changes sign to that of the
main stream . This region, in which the fluid accommodates itself to t he inner
attaching-stagnation-point flow and to the outer, main-stream rear-stagna
tion-point flow, grows exponentially with time, and leads to a displ acement
t hick ness t hat is o (aR-l/2eT), where t he Reynolds number R= U",a/v and
T= U",t/a. Thus downstream of separation t he displacement thick ness
cannot be expected to tend uniformly to a fi nite limite as t-+ <Xl. The situa
tion is illustrated in Figure 1.
The ultimate flow for large time will be very complex, and one might
conjecture that t he flow pattern resembles that of Figure 2. Once t he un
steady flow in t he neighbourhood of t he rear stagnation point Tl of the
cylinder has reversed, and the position of zero sk in friction, which at
48 BROWN & STEWARTSON
first coincided with it, has moved upstrea m to Plo say, then TI is a point of
a ttachment and the boundary layers associated with it must eventually
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1969.1:45-72. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
themselves include a region of reversed flow star ting at P2• Between PI and
P2 there might be another point of a ttachment T2 w hich initia tes boundary
layers that separate at Pa. The for m of the limit solution, and even the
by Brown University on 09/10/12. For personal use only.
with u = v = 0 on y = 0 for an i mper meable wall, and U-'> UI (x) as y-'> 00 Here
•
FIG. 2.
LAMINAR SEPARATION 49
related by PI + Cl/2)pl UI2 = constant. Since the governing equations are
parabolic it is also necessary to specify an inital profile for u at some station
of x, usually a stagnation point of the external flow. By analogy with the heat
equation, the flow properties at any point will be independent of conditions
farther downstream as long as u remains positive, and the solution exists and
is u nique [Nickel (8), Oleinik (9)]. The forces acting on the fluid in the
boundary layer are three in number, the main stream in the direction of
positive x, the skin friction in the direction of negative x, and the pressure
gradient. Thus, if the pressure decreases in the direction of flow , the skin
friction cannot vanish and the boundary-layer solution continues unim
peded. However if the pressure gradient is positive, zero skin friction is a
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1969.1:45-72. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
possibility, reversed flow sets in, and the computation may be expected to
break dow n if only because of incompleteness of the bou ndary conditions .
Further discussion of this dilemma may be fou nd in Par t I I .
With a presc ribed positive pressure gradient the solution o f the boundary
by Brown University on 09/10/12. For personal use only.
the exponents 3/4, 1/4 being appropriate if, as is to be expected, the pressure
gradient is a controlling feature of the flow near separation. The b oundary
conditions on the functions in of Equation 1.4 are, w hen there is no suction,
in CO) =In/(O) = 0, where the prime denotes differentiation with respect to
TJ=y/(x.-x)li4, together with the requirement that no in must b e exponen-
50 B ROWN & STEWARTSON
tially large as TJ-.7 00 in order to locate any singularity on the wall. Later
Stewartson (11) showed that to satisfy the imposed conditions it is necessary
t o add terms in I n x to the expansion (Equation 1.4) . In t he two-dimensional
problem, of w hich a lucid and comprehensive account, including the effects
of su ction, is given by Terrill (12),16 must be replaced by 15+ F6 In x, and
similarly with subsequent terms when required. The final solu tion contains
an infinite nu mber of arbitrary constants, w hich presu mably are determined
by the flow u pstream of S. For a circular cylinder with Ul(X) = U", sin (x/a)
t he numerical work of Terrill gives, for appropriate choice of t he leading
arbitrary constants in Equation 1.4, a convincing match with t he analytic
solution valid in the immediate neighbou rhood of S, and shows, almost con
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1969.1:45-72. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
with f(O) =f'(O) = 0 and f'( 00 ) =1. The solution for which the skin friction is
zero hasf"(O) =0 with m=mo= -0.0904 and f"(0) C( (m-mo)'/2 near m=mo.
This branch point at m=mo divides the solutions for which f"(TJ) >0 for all7J
from those that have a region of reversed flow near the wall. The latter solu
tions, fou nd by Stew artson (18), are discussed i n Part II, as they are believed
t o have application to post-separation flow . Even though main streams of the
form xm are largely academic, since they become infinite as either X-.70 or
X-.7 00, and there is no rigorous confirmation of the assu mption that an actual
main stream can be replaced by a succession of such profiles with different
values of m as x increases, t he above resu lt is certainly not inconsistent with
the prediction of a singularity at separation.
LAMINAR SEPARATION 51
u ncoupled. Cooling the wall may be expected to delay separation while heat
ing would encourage ear lier breakaway as the lighter fluid more easily loses
contact with the bou ndary. A similar expansion to Equation 1 .4 in this sit
by Brown University on 09/10/12. For personal use only.
uation [S tewar tso n (21)] leads to the resu lt that if the heat transfer is non
zero at S, the point of vanishing s ki n fr iction, none of the singular ter ms can
occur, and this point mus t be a regu lar point. A singularity is possible if the
heat transfer vanis hes at S, even if it is nonzero elsewhere.
This r ather surprisi ng co nclusion, namely, that heat transfer precludes
a singularity at S, has given rise to an interes ting co ntroversy. Early co mpu
tations by Poots (22) su pported it as do the similarity solutions [Stewartson
(20 ) ; Cohen & Reshotko (23)]. However , Williams (24) , who r epeated Poots's
calculation bu t to a higher accuracy, found c lear evidence of a singularity at
S. Failing an error in the analytic study there are two possible interpretatio ns
of the contr adiction. One alternati ve is that the singularity in the nu merical
wor k is o nly apparent and is s moothed out within a distance of S so s mall
that it is inaccessible to the co mputer. It is noted in this co nnectio n that the
assu mptio n of a singularity i n the analytic s tudy does no t i mmediately lead
to a contradiction, sugges ting that the struc ture is r ather subtle. The o ther
possibility is that the heat transfer ac tually vanishes at S, in which case the
analysis is inapplicable . However , i n Williams' s tudy (24) , although the heat
transfer is i ncreasing r apidly at S, he is of the opinion that it is still sub
s tantially negative at S. A so mewhat mor e equivocal co nclusion was drawn
by Sells (25) in a par allel study.
Ano ther interes ting counter-example to Ste wartso n's analytical resul t
has been given b y M er ki n (26) who considers the convection problem of a
semi-infinite ver tical plate i n a parallel u nifor m s tream. If x measures dis
tance along the plate with origin at the leading edge, which is at the lowest
point, and y measures distance normal to the plate, with u,v the corres pond
ing components of velocity, the equations of motion are as Equation 1 . 1
with g{3(T T",) replacing (l/PI) (dPI/dx), and the equatio n for the te mper
- -
ature Tis
aT aT a2T
U-+V-=K- 1.6.
ax iJy ay'
52 BROWN & STEWARTSON
I n the above g deno tes gravity, K the coefficient of conductivity of the fl uid,
and {3 that of thermal expansion. T he temperature of the fl uid at large dis
tances f ro m the plate is T"" while t he plate is kept at constant temperature
Tw. The bo undary conditions on the velocity are
y = 0: u = v = 0; y -> 00: tt -> U. 1 .7 .
Near the leading edge the flow i s that o f Blasi us, while the effect of buoyancy
comes i n as x i ncreases. If the wall is heated with Tw > T", the buoyancy acts
like a favo urable pressure gradient and the flow does not separ ate. However,
for a cooled wall the buoyancy has a reverse effect and separatio n occurs.
M erki n shows numerically that the position of zero ski n friction is given by
g(3(T", - T.,)x
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1969.1:45-72. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
= 0.1924 1.8 .
UI
and that the approach to separation is singular, even tho ugh the heat trans
fer does not vanish at that poi nt.
by Brown University on 09/10/12. For personal use only.
a marching process into a zone D which contai ns o nly streamlines that have
entered it ei ther fro m the main stream or by crossing the normals at attach
ment. Such a pr6cedure was adopted by Der & Raetz (27). Experi mental
evidence indicates that the downstream edge of such a zone coi ncides with
the breakaway of the main stream from the wall, and we may i nter pret this
as three-dimensional separation.
I t is possible that one is hindered i n any i nvestigation of three-di men
sio nal separation by preconceived ideas carried over fro m two-dimensional
theory. In two dimensions the flow separates at, or very near, t he poi nt
where the streamwise skin friction vanishes, and if we consider it as a three
dimensional flow then there is a whole line of poi nts o n which bo th co m
ponents of the ski n frictio n vecto r (T""T.) vanish. In truly three-dimensio nal
flow such a line cannot be expected to occur, and both co mponents of skin
fri ction will, i n general, vanish only at isolated poi nts o n the surface. It is,
however, too restrictive to fix attention o n these poi nts alo ne i n any attempt
at a mathematical definitio n of separation, since many flows appear to sepa
rate along a li ne on which the parallel co mponent of ski n frictio n is no t every
where zero. Stewartson (28) defines a separ ation li ne as a curve on the body
dividing those points that are accessible to the streamlines entering the zo ne
at attachment from those points that are inaccessible from attachment. This
definition has the advantage of embracing both two- and three-di mensional
flows and is appropriate whether t he separatio n skin friction is singular or
otherwise.
LAMINAR SEPARATION 53
A useful aid to understanding in the study of three-dimensional separa
tion is the concept of limiting streamlines as discussed by, among others,
Maskell (29) and Lighthill (30). These are the skin-friction lines or the
streamlines nearest the wall in the boundary layer and they have the equa
tion
dx dz
, y 0 1.9.
Tz Tz
=
where x,z are coordinates in the surface. The "singular points" of the differ
ential equation (1.9) are the points where both components of skin friction
vanish, and these will be saddle or nodal points of attachment or separation.
Lighthill (30) presents illustrations of possible topographical configurations
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1969.1:45-72. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
where c is the volume flow along the streamtube and is constant. Equation
1 . 10 shows that there are two mechanisms that can cause the streamlines to
leave the surface. The ordinate y increases if either 7,,=7;,=0 and both
components of skin friction vanish, or if h becomes very small and the lim
iting streamlines run close together. Thus the flow may also separate along
the envelope of the limiting streamlines, and we have a definition of separa
tion additional to the one proposed above. Lighthill warns the researcher
against an uncritical acceptance of this latter view of separation. We are
inclined to favour it however, as it is supported by experiment and by the
few numerical investigations that have been undertaken, and it is consistent
with many of the flow fields in the informative illustrations of Maskell (29).
These alternative proposals for separation are illustrated for the case of a
symmetrically disposed ellipsoid in Figures 3a and 3b.
The question whether the envelope of the limiting streamlines coincides
with a singularity in the solution of the three-dimensional boundary-layer
equations is presumably subordinate to the question whether the separation
line is an envelope of limiting streamlines. However it is helpful to consider
them in conjunction. We note that if algebraic singularities are permitted,
the skin-friction lines may meet the envelope at finite points, but if the skin
friction is regular they do not intersect their envelope. The two questions
can at present be answered only for a few cases of quasi-two-dimensional
flow. Support for the concept of the separation line as the envelope of the
limiting streamlines is supplied by a numerical integration of the equations
for the incompressible flow of a conical main stream past an inclined cone by
54 BROWN & STEWARTSON
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1969.1:45-72. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
FIG.3a. One possibility for limiting streamlines for a symmetrically disposed ellipsoid.
:
by Brown University on 09/10/12. For personal use only.
Cooke ( 3 1 ) . In this case the s eparation line is the line through the apex on
which the transverse component of s kin friction vanishes , and is , as shown
by Brown (32) for the closely related problem of a delta wing, a line of singu
larities of the type p roposed by Goldstein ( 2) . This conclusion is also sup
ported by the nu merical evidence.
Another three-dimensional theoretical and numerical investigation has
recently been u ndertaken by Banks & Williams ( 33) . The p roblem is that of
a yawed cylinder with a main stream that has components U1(x) = 1 -x,
WI= 1, and one of the ques tions the authors set ou t to answer is whether the
spanwise s kin friction Tz vanishes along the line on which the chordwise s kin
friction T ", is zero. The numerical results , which are matched convincingly
with a Goldstein type expansion about the position of zero chordwise skin
-
friction in spite of an infinite value of iJ4w/iJy4 , indicate that Tz;eO so that the
t t
FIG. 3b. Alternative possibility for limiting streamlines for a
symmet rica ll y d ispo sed e llip soid .
LAMINAR SEPARATION 5S
components of skin fric tion are not zero simultaneously. Here again the
separation line is the envelope of the limiting streamlines.
Little progress has as yet been made with the problem of general three
dimensional separation . Apar t from the enormous computational difficulties
of three (or in the heat-transfer situation four) interdependent equations,
there is the added complica tion that the limiting streamlines will not , in
gener al , be parallel to the main strea m. This presents new problems for the
marching process mentioned earlier , since the direction for the integra tion
procedure is no longer well defined.
Flows with suction and i njection. Intuiti ve ly one would expec t tha t it
-
would be possible to delay separation by drawing fluid into the plate , and
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1969.1:45-72. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
that ex pelling fluid from it into the boundary layer would advance separa
tion , and indeed the evidence available indicates tha t this is so. When the
main-stream and suction velocities are suitably related powers of x , the
by Brown University on 09/10/12. For personal use only.
1
(-:OY) 1.12.
U�X) = - exp
This is the asymptotic suction profile, which of course does �ot separa te.
Per turbations about this solution for various forms of the main stream were
considered by Watson (35). For UI(X) = Uo(1-x/l) (which is the main
stream appropriate for flow i n the neighborhood of the rear stagnation poin t
o f a cylinder, 1 being a representative length), the associated s imilarity equa
tion has no solution for any value of the suction velocity, and we deduce th at
no amount of suction will prevent separation. In this case Equation 1.12
cannot be a uniform ly valid firs t approxim ation to th e solution , th ough it is
not clear where th e expansion breaks down. A numerical investigation by
Williams (24) indicates th at, with th is linearly r etarded main stream, the
separation point x. is given by
= 1 - a - 1.13.
where a, k are constants and k:::::: 2.1. No analytical confirmation of this resu lt
has yet been obtained, but it is in direct contradiction with the r esults of
by Brown University on 09/10/12. For personal use only.
M orduchow & Reyle (36) who predict that a finite value of the suction
velocity is sufficient to prevent separation. However we believe th at their
Pohlhausen tech nique, involving though it did seventh-degr ee polynomial
velocity profiles , is too blunt an ins trument to settle such a delicate question.
For a two-dimensional boundary layer with a retarded main s tream the
effect of suction or injection on the singularity at separation is to leave es
sentially unaltered the for m proposed by Goldstein (2). This is demonstrated
by Terrill (12). However , if the main stream has cons tant velocity U and
fluid is injected into the boundary layer , Catherall, Stewar tson & Williams
(37) encou ntered a singularity at separation of an entirely different ch ar
acter. I n this situation there is no possibility of a solution regular at the
point of zer o s kin friction, which is u nlike the retarded-main-stream case,
where the coefficients of all th e singular terms i n th e expansion about that
point can be zero. The appropriate form for the s kin friction as X�X8 is found
by matching the solution i n a region in which u,...x ., .-x to an inner region in
which u,...(., X.-X)2 and is
T'" ( x* )2
In x*
-
1.14.
friction occurs at x.= 1.822983 a and a neig hbouring velocity profile is tabu
lated at X= 1.821 a where r(x) cos (x/2a) =0.066 (av/Uoo)I/2 dpl/dx. From
t he velocity profiles t hemselves, which are p resented at equal intervals of
7)= (Uoo/av)1/2 y cos (x/2a) one finds that {u(x,y) -u.(y)} /(du./d7) varies from
0.064 to 0.059 as 7) increases. This error is felt to be well within t he bounds of
the approximation of Equation 1.16. From Equation 1.16 a relation between
the disp lacement thicknesses at the two points may also be found. I f we
define
OI(X) = J � (1 - UI(x) ) dy
o
_U_ 1. 17 .
then
OI(X) = OI(X.) - dPl/dx
--
r(x)
+ O(x* In x*) 1.18.
The main conclusion from the analy tic study of flow in the neighbour
hood of separation with an adverse pressure gradient is that the streamwise
component of velocity re mains finite as X--'fX.-, but the normal component
develops a singularity all along the separation line. A rather diffe rent picture
is presented by the solution near separation when the pressure gradient is
zero but instead there is uniform injection across the boundary (See sec tion
on "Flows with suction and injection"). Here a parallel analysis shows that as
X--'fX.-
u "" F(y - g(x», g(x) = - In T(X) 1 .19.
Here r ex) is defined in Equation 1 .14 and F is similar to, but not identical
with, the mixing profile of Chapman (38 ) . Agree ment with the n umerical
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1969.1:45-72. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
solution [Catherall, Stewartson & Williams (37)] is quite good, and we see
that the displacement thickness now has a logarithmic singularity at sepa
ration. Thus, in spite of the weaker singularity in r (x) , the effect is much
by Brown University on 09/10/12. For personal use only.
more dramatic than in the adverse pressure gradient situation , for the
boundary layer i s blown off the wall by the injec ted fluid.
Flows with severe pressure gradient.-We conclude Part I with a few re
marks concerning a situation that occasionally arises in incompressible flow,
but is more usually associated with the interaction between a shock wave and
the boundary layer when the main stream is supersonic. The situation occ urs
if the prescribed pressure , after varying moderately slowly ove r a substantial
length of the boundary layer, suddenly rises steeply and possibly provokes
separation. For example , if x 1 represents the trailing edge of a thin plate ,
=
1.20.
a, b, U constants and b«a«l, the flow is almost that given by the B lasius
solution except that dUI/dx may be large when l-x--'b. Since the rapid
variations take place over a short distance the perturbations in almost the
whole boundary layer may be regarded as inviscid, the viscous forces be
ing negligible . Hence a slip velocity is induced at the wall which is reduced
to zero by an inner viscous layer. S uppose for example that a,....."b2/a• Then the
inner layer has thickness O«av)I/2) and is li kely to separate . Howeve r, if
a«b2/a, no separation occ urs in thi s region, while if a»b2/a se paration is
provoked early on . Thus even a very small pressure rise causes separation if
it occurs sufficiently rapidly . The notion of an inner boundary layer in this
connection was first introduced by Stewartson (39) and Lighthill (40) in
their studies of shock-wave boundary-layer interactions, and an approximate
theory using these concepts was given by Stratford (41 ) . Stratford finds that
the distance to separation satisfies
1 .21 .
LAMINAR SEPARATION S9
where K=0.0076, Cp=2(PI-PO)/P1UO\ and Po and Uo are the pressure and
velocity at some conve nient point of the external flow. It is noted that if
K=0.0104, as Curle & Skan (42) have shown, Equation 1.21 agrees well with
many accurate computations even when the pressure gradient is not severe .
tive of the separation profile at y = 0, and so, if this derivative does vanish,
the solution will be regular. Alternatively, we have already seen that near
x =x.
by Brown University on 09/10/12. For personal use only.
2 .1 .
B C 0
u>O u>O
Y/ E
IX
A S F
FIG. 4.
as a spe cial case , and his work strongly su pports the physical argument.
Again Gevrey (45) has m ade a detailed study o f model equations o f mi xed
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1969.1:45-72. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
type and has proved existe nce theorems (not qu ite com plete since a clear
conditio n that the data m ust satisfy was no t given) . Further, Stewartson
( 1 1) has examined the structu re of the solu tion near S and sho wn that a
nonuniqueness o ccurs in general, as an infinite set of fu nctions, each of which
by Brown University on 09/10/12. For personal use only.
M ach number of the u ndisturbed u niform inviscid flow and I d20tldx21 «1.
Normally 0 1 is determined from the Blasius solutio n and d20l/dx2<0 so that
the pressure gradient is favourable, which does not encourage separation.
If this can be reversed however , an instability sets in, leading to separatio n.
Two requirements must be met: first , the initial sign of d20l/dx2 must be
r eversed, and this may be achieved by the inevitable small irregularities in
the initial boundary layer; seco nd, the do wnstream pressure must show a
rise when com pared with its u pstream value, and this is also a feature o f
shock-wave interactio ns.
I n order to put this argument o n a sou nd basis, the key point we must
bear in mind is that the pressure rise to separatio n is sm all, so that the pres
sure gr adient is large in the free-interaction zone. So , from Equation 2.2,
the distance downstream over which it takes place must be small. Conse
quently the viscous forces i n the boundary layer are negligible in this region
except when Y/Vl/2 is small, i.e. , right at the wall even o n the scale of the
boundary layer. In the remainder of the boundary layer the changes occur
through inviscid processes; consequently a slip velocity occurs as Y/V'/2�0,
which is reduced to zero by the inner boundary layer. A start o n a theo ry
o n these lines was made by Lighthill (40). He treated the whole problem as a
linear perturbation of a Blasius flow, which he recognised as specifically
excluding the possibility of separatio n. Never theless he was able to o btain
the initial pressure rise in the form
2.3.
where
K-'
U,3/2 (T'" )3/4 (!lv»H4
- - P'"-1/4 2.4.
=
(O.78)3/4(MI2 - 1)3/8 TI T
Here T is the tem perature, the suffix w denotes conditions at the wall , Xo is
an arbitrary constant, and T is the Blasius skin frictio n.
62 BROWN & STEWARTSON
A number of o ther authors have considered this problem and for an ac
count of the earlier work the reader is referred to Stewartson (28). We shall,
with o ne exception, not go over this ground again but will discuss the more
recent work in so me detail, but we state, very firmly, that those methods
not based on the ideas laid down by Lighthill are theoretically unsound and
canno t be regarded as contributing to the understanding o f the pheno meno n
on the basis of the N avier-Stokes equations. To be sure, the agree ment be
tween theory and experime nt is often quite good, but this in itself is no t a
sufficient basis for acce pting the theory as correct.
The most important of the earlier wor k is due to Gadd (49). He properly
divides the boundar y layer into two layers, treating the outer as if it were
inviscid and co ntrolled by a pressure gradient that is independent of y. The
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1969.1:45-72. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
inner is treated by Stratford's (41) method, and the matching o f the two
zo nes enables the pressure to be fo und and the solution to be co mple ted. I n
detail the approach i s a d hoc and intuitive, and needs to be p u t o n a more
by Brown University on 09/10/12. For personal use only.
secure mathematical basis. One of the present authors (K. S.) and P . G .
Williams (67) have done this, b u t space limitations prevent its inclusion here
and the results will be published elsewhere. Gadd's principal results are that
at separatio n the pressure is given by
P. 1. ByM,2
2 .5 .
p; 1 + 2(M,2 1)'/4R'/4
= _
2.6.
(Ml2 _ 1)3/8R3I8
where R UIX./P is the Reynolds number. A compariso n between his theory
=
and experi ment in o ne case is given in Figure 5. These formulae are in quali
tative agreement with the rigorous theory and Equation 2 .5 agrees well with
experiment. Lewis, Kubota & Lees (50) have carried out a correlation of
experimental data with Curle's (51) for m for the pressure:
2 .7 .
0-08
lC
JC
JC )( JC
)(
0-06 ?x )(x lC
)(
Cp
,,�
./
0 -04
O-(]'}
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1969.1:45-72. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
" X
X/X
,,�
I OJ::
�___�"
0 0-2 0- 4 0·6 o·e 1-0 1-2 1 -,4- 1'6
by Brown University on 09/10/12. For personal use only.
briefly below beginning with the o ne developed by Abbo tt, Holt & Nielsen
(52) and by Nielsen, Lynes & Goodwin (53, 54).
The essential idea in Nielsen's procedure is due originally to Dorodnitsyn
(55), and co nsists of co nverting the differential e quation of the bou ndary
layer into a number of integral relatio ns by multiplying the e quation by
un, n = O, 1, 2, . . . , where u=u/ U" and integrating with respect to y across
the bou ndary layer. These integrals in turn can be reduced to integrals with
respect to u in which au/ay is the only unknown fu nctio n, and the technique
is to assume a co nvenient relatio nship between au/ay and u, involving fu nc
tions of x to be fou nd, in order to reduce the integral relations to a set o f
ordinary equations in x. I n that part of the flow field for which u >0, the
authors assume that
ou (1 - 1�) (U + a3) 1 12
2.9.
oy ao + alU + a2u2
and use four integral equations (n 0, 1, 2, 3) to set up the o rdinary differen
=
tial equations for ao(x), aleX) , a2(x) , a3(x). The special form chosen in Equa
tion 2.9 e nsures that the principal properties of au/ay are satisfied, and yet
the necessary integrations al'e as simple as possible. I n that part of the flow
field for which u <0, u is assumed to be a polynomial in y, usually a cubic,
continuity of a2u/ay2 across the line tt = ° be in g required if possible. Com pari
so n with the classical bou ndary-layer compu tatio ns, of Leigh (14) fo r e x
am ple, shows good agreement u p to separation and, fo r an insulated wall, a
free-interactio n zone is possible provided the calculatio n is started by giving
the pressure a small increment !J.p. As !J.p---"O it is fou nd that the numerical
solutions seem to co nverge to a limit solutio n that is in good agreement with
experiment as far as separatio n. Beyond separation the induced pressure
reaches a maximum and, if the computation is co ntinued far enou gh, u
64 BROWN & STEWARTSON
changes sign again near the wall. neither of which is reasonable o n physical
grou nds. Nevertheless when the au thors apply the m ethod to a number o f
problems where the principal shock i s indu ced b y a wedge, encouraging
agreement with experiment is fou nd for the surface pressure. A typical ex
ample is given in Figure 6. In a later paper (54) the method is applied to
non-insu lated walls and it is co ncluded that for sufficiently cooled walls
[T",/Tadlab <0.1331 no free interaction can o ccu r. This result is in direct con
tradiction with the theories o f Lighthill and Gadd. In ou r view, the contradic
tio n is a consequ ence of the coarseness of the method of integral relations
which prima facie does not seem to be well adapted to cope with the special
features of free interactions, namely, that they are almost entirely inviscid.
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1969.1:45-72. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Although we welcome the good agreement with experim ent in the quoted
cases for insulated walls, the unrealistic features of the results m entioned
above, together with the almost total neglect of the possibility of upstream
propagation of disturbances, lead us to the conclusion that is it a rather un
by Brown University on 09/10/12. For personal use only.
J
INVIS O WEDGE
PRESSURE 0
,.,. �o
.0
0 '"
REATTACHMENT
e d POINT
...
, I
..
'f 0
..
..0
//
. 0 0 0 O 'To o
G
.2 r '"
SE.PARATION POINT
0 .,.,..,.
0 ...f'l..
I ' 1 1,00
"
0
'�;p '8 .0& .12 .16 .20 .2' .2& .32 .36
Originally, when similarity solutions were used, m was linked with the ex
ternal pressure gradient on p hysical grounds but in the Lees-Reeves method
by Brown University on 09/10/12. For personal use only.
this is abandoned and m, like 0/, is regarded as a function of x and the or
dinary differential equations satisfied by m and 0/ are derived from the inte
gral relations mentioned earlier. The authors actually replace m by a para
meter a defined as follows:
a(x) =
o. au
-
) if
au
-
) �0 2.11.
�_o �_o
-
Ul ay ay
a(x)
Yo
0,
= - if -oy)
au
.-0
<0 2.12.
curve, which carries the solution through separation, are found. Then a
switch is made to the similar solutions with reversed flow, a is defined by
(2.12), and the integration proceeds straightforwardly. Without any further
modifications to the boundary conditions the pressure continues to increase
monotonically and eventually reaches a plateau. This is physically more
satisfactory than the corresponding result by Nielsen's method. One possible
explanation is the form of the similarity solutions with reversed flow which
consist, particularly as m�O-, of a large region of very slowly moving re
versed flow, separated from the inviscid outer flow by a thin shear layer,
whose structure approaches Chapman's (38) mixing layer, and such solutions
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1969.1:45-72. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
are in line with observation. Another is that the principal integral properties
of the similar solutions are monotonic functions of a . In their paper Lees &
Reeves went on to achieve a spectacular success with the shock-wave boun
dary-layer i nteraction problem. In this problem, at the shock i mpingement
by Brown University on 09/10/12. For personal use only.
one must change the formula relating the pressure to the boundary-layer
displacement thickness by determining the constant in the Prandtl-Meyer
l aw from the i nviscid solution far downstream, while a, M 1 and 0: are con
tinuous. At reattachment a change is made to the velocity profiles without
reversed flow and the integral curve is chosen for which dMI/do;" and
da/do"�O as a_1.58 (Blasius value) . Clearly, a very large amount of itera
tion is required, for in addition the position of separation relative to shock
i mpingement must be guessed and the whole solution repeated until condi
tions far downstream are in line with the requirements of inviscid theory.
One of the comparisons made with experiment is shown in Figure 7 ; others
may be found in Lewis, Kubota & Lees (50) . The agreement on the whole is
2.2
2.0
1.8
i
Po
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0 -0 I
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
X
boundary layer. Finally one might have doubts because of the complexity
of the computations involved ; however, several workers have repeated them
in a variety of problems and confirmed the good agreement with experiment.
Hankey & Cross (59) have endeavoured to simplify the method, reducing it
by Brown University on 09/10/12. For personal use only.
revealing two defects in the method. The first is that the similarity solutions
i mply that a must be less than 3.9, whereas in the actual boundary-layer
cases i nvestigated a apparently must exceed this value. The authors deal
with this difficulty by setting a equal to 3.9 downstream of the point where it
first reaches this value, until separation is reached where a changes discon
tinuously. This discontinuity is forced on the method by the structure of the
ordinary differential equations it uses, and appears to have nothing whatso
ever to do with the real flow. They associate the discontinuity with a sharp
pressure rise, of 24 per cent in one case quoted, and associated fall in boun
dary-layer thickness. Actually one can virtually ignore the interaction be
tween the boundary layer and the main stream until close to separation, so
Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 1969.1:45-72. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
into account the interaction, which becomes i mportant for the first time
near separation. The reader is referred to the original papers for a discussion
of the super-critical and sub-critical regions in the approximate method ; we
merely add the comment that the comparison with experiment is not con
vincing enough to overcome our serious reservations.
Wake studies.-The theory of the development of a supersonic laminar
wake behind a bluff body or a backward-facing step has attracted increasing
attention in recent years. Perhaps the most interesting of the investigations
that have been carried out are due to Lees and his associates (57, 62) , and to
Baum & Denison (63) , and we shall discuss aspects of their work here. First
however we consider the most significant of the earlier work.
This has largely been concerned with wakes from backward-facing steps,
or their eq uivalent, and the p roblems p resented are ext rem ely difficult be
cause the shear layer coming off the step separates the inviscid flow outside
from a slowly moving mass of fluid in the dead-air region. Later on, this
shear layer either reattaches to the wall downstream of the step or, in the
case of base flows, amalgamates with another shear layer. Lighthill (40)
in the paper already quoted has considered the problem of boundary-layer
development around a convex corner. He was concerned with small flow
deflections, whereas in practice the flow deflection may not be small, but the
general structure of the flow is probably the same i n the two cases, namely,
the principal expansion is inviscid with an inner boundary layer to take care
of the resultant slip velocity. In an earlier paper Lighthill (64) suggested,
but later (40) withdrew, the suggestion that some over-expansion takes
place. It is i nteresting to note that recent experimental work [Hama (65)]
on flow around a right-angled bend reveals an upstream effect and, past the
corner, an over-expansion, followed by a substantial lip-shock. A reappraisal
and possible extension of Lighthill's theory would be helpful in understand
ing this phenomenon.
A simple theory of base flow has been given by Chapman, Kuehn & Larson
(66) for flows in which the initial main flux through the boundary layer is
LAMINAR SEPARATION 69
between this dead-air region and the main stream there is a thin shear layer
in which the fluid velocity varies from zero to its main-stream value and
whose properties are now classic. This shear layer entrains fluid from the
main stream which provides part of the boundary layer downstream of B ;
i t also entrains fluid from the dead-air region which must be returned near B .
The streamline separating the two entrainments i s found t o be the one on
which the velocity u* =0.587 UIr where U1 is the mainstream velocity. This
streamline must be the stagnation streamline at B. Chapman now assumes
that in the neighbourhood of B the total pressure remains constant on the
dividing streamline, so that
PDA = P2
( 1 + )' - -M*2
2
1 )-�/ (r-l)
where PDA is the pressure in the dead-air region, P2 is the pressure on the wall
downstream of B and M* is the Mach number of the streamline. This theory
raises a nu mber of questions, (e.g., is the fluid in the dead-air region almost
at rest and is the flow near reattachment so simple?), but the agreement with
experiment is so good that one is inclined to believe that it contains the
principal features controlling the dead-air zone, and that it may well be
worth exploring the assumptions further from a more rigorous standpoint.
This, however, has not been done and the main contribution to this topic
has been to apply the Lees-Reeves method, taking into account an initial
main flux into the shear layer at 0 which would arise if OAB were part of a
backward-facing step. Also the method has been applied to the base flow of
a body by an obvious extension. The principles of the method are as for the
interaction problem described earlier, the main difference being that in the
base-flow problem the similarity profiles used downstream of the rear stag
nation point are those satisfying a zero stress condition on the boundary
[Stewartson (18)]. For - 1/5 <m < -0.0904 the corresponding velocity
profiles are positive, but, for -0 .0904 <m <0 , there is a region of reversed
70 BROWN & STEWARTSON
but more generally than, Equation 2.2. Their initial profiles contain a param
eter M( l , 0) which is the Mach nu mber at the outer edge of the boundary
layer, and they find that the solutions obtained have the main characteristic
of a saddle point, i.e., except for one value of M(l, 0) they become physically
unacceptable. This lends some support to the claim that the curious proper
ties of the equations in the Lees- Reeves method have some basis in physics.
We make a final point about the recent attempts to obtain theories of
wake flows and interaction problems. These methods lay tremendous em
phasis on massive computation and ad hoc arguments to lead to their results,
little attempt being made to j ustify the assumptions on mathematical
grounds. While we recognise the need for such a computational effort in the
end, it seems to us of great importance that a rational approach be adopted
to make sure, for example, that terms neglected in the approxi mation really
are much smaller than those retained. Until this is done, and even now it
is possible in part, it will be difficult to convince the detached and possibly
skeptical reader of their value as an aid to understanding.
LAM I NAR SEPARATION 71
7. Stewartson, K., Fluid Dynam. Trans. , 34. Jones, C. W., Watson, E . ]., Laminar
3, 1 2 7-46, Warsaw (1967) Boundary Layers 198-257 (Rosen
8. Nickel, K., Arch. Ration. Mech. A nal. head, L., Ed., Oxford, 1963)
Z, 1-31 (1958) 35. Watson, E . ]., A eron. Res. Council
9. Oleinik, O. A., Zh. Vychisl. Matem. Rept. Mem., 2 6 1 9 ( 1952)
36. l'vlorduchow, M., Reyle, S. P., Intern. J .
by Brown University on 09/10/12. For personal use only.
5, 1224-30 (1967)
3, 207-19. von Karman, Th., Ed.,