Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5d6d958fb5-gz6rp Total loading time: 0.347 Render date: 2022-11-29T08:38:55.688Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

On the large difference between Benjamin’s and Hanratty’s formulations of perturbed flow over uneven terrain

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 May 2019

Paolo Luchini*
Affiliation:
Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Salerno, 84084 Fisciano, Italy
François Charru
Affiliation:
Institut de Mècanique des Fluides de Toulouse, 31400 Toulouse, France
*
Email address for correspondence: luchini@unisa.it

Abstract

Flow over an uneven terrain is a complex phenomenon that requires a chain of approximations in order to be studied. In addition to modelling the intricacies of turbulence if present, the problem is classically first linearized about a flat bottom and a locally parallel flow, and then asymptotically approximated into an interactive representation that couples a boundary layer and an irrotational region through an intermediate inviscid but rotational layer. The first of these steps produces a stationary Orr–Sommerfeld equation; since this is a one-dimensional problem comparatively easy for any computer, it would seem appropriate today to forgo the second sweep of approximation and solve the Orr–Sommerfeld problem numerically. However, the results are inconsistent! It appears that the asymptotic approximation tacitly restores some of the original problem’s non-parallelism. In order to provide consistent results, Benjamin’s version of the Orr–Sommerfeld equation needs to be modified into Hanratty’s. The large difference between Benjamin’s and Hanratty’s formulations, which arises in some wavenumber ranges but not in others, is here explained through an asymptotic analysis based on the concept of admittance and on the symmetry transformations of the boundary layer. A compact and accurate analytical formula is provided for the wavenumber range of maximum laminar shear-stress response. We highlight that the maximum turbulent shear-stress response occurs in the quasi-laminar regime at a Reynolds-independent wavenumber, contrary to the maximum laminar shear-stress response whose wavenumber scales with a power of the boundary-layer thickness. A numerical computation involving an eddy-viscosity model provides a warning against the inaccuracy of such a model. We emphasize that the range $k\unicode[STIX]{x1D708}/u_{\unicode[STIX]{x1D70F}}<10^{-3}$ of the spectrum remains essentially unexplored, and that the question is still open whether a fully developed turbulent regime, similar to the one predicted by an eddy-viscosity model, ever exists for open flow even in the limit of infinite wavelength.

Type
JFM Papers
Copyright
© 2019 Cambridge University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramowitz, M. & Stegun, I. A. 1972 Handbook of Mathematical Functions, 10th edn. Applied Mathematics Series, vol. 55. National Bureau of Standards.Google Scholar
Abrams, J. & Hanratty, T. J. 1985 Relaxation effects observed for turbulent flow over a wavy surface. J. Fluid Mech. 151, 443455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belcher, S. E. & Hunt, J. C. R. 1993 Turbulent shear flow over slowly moving waves. J. Fluid Mech. 251, 109148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belcher, S. E. & Hunt, J. C. R. 1998 Turbulent flow over hills and waves. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 30, 507538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benjamin, T. B. 1957 Wave formation in laminar flow down an inclined plane. J. Fluid Mech. 2, 554574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benjamin, T. B. 1959 Shearing flow over a wavy boundary. J. Fluid Mech. 6, 161205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charru, F., Andreotti, B. & Claudin, P. 2013 Sand ripples and dunes. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 45, 469493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charru, F. & Hinch, E. J. 2000 Phase diagram of interfacial instabilities in a two-layer Couette flow and mechanism of the long-wave instability. J. Fluid Mech. 414, 195233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ern, P., Charru, F. & Luchini, P. 2003 Stability analysis of a shear flow with strongly stratified viscosity. J. Fluid Mech. 496, 295312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, P. S. & Hunt, J. C. R. 1975 Turbulent wind flow over a low hill. Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc. 101, 929955.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luchini, P. 2016 Immersed-boundary simulations of turbulent flow past a sinusoidally undulated river bottom. Eur. J. Mech. B/Fluids 55, 340347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luchini, P. 2017 Addendum to ‘Immersed-boundary simulations of turbulent flow past a sinusoidally undulated river bottom’. Eur. J. Mech. B/Fluids 62, 5758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luchini, P. 2018a Structure and interpolation of the turbulent velocity profile in parallel flow. Eur. J. Mech. B/Fluids 71, 1534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luchini, P. 2018b An elementary example of contrasting laminar and turbulent flow physics. Phys. Rev. Fluids (submitted), arXiv:1811.11877.Google Scholar
Luchini, P. & Charru, F. 2010 The phase lead of shear stress in shallow-water flow over a perturbed bottom. J. Fluid Mech. 665, 516539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luchini, P. & Charru, F. 2017 Quasilaminar regime in the linear response of a turbulent flow to wall waviness. Phys. Rev. Fluids 2 (1), 012601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Russo, S. & Luchini, P. 2016 The linear response of turbulent flow to a volume force: comparison between eddy-viscosity model and DNS. J. Fluid Mech. 790, 104127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorsness, C. B.1975 Transport phenomena associated with flow over a solid wavy surface. PhD thesis in Chemical Engineering, University of Illinois, Urbana.Google Scholar
Thorsness, C. B., Morrisroe, P. E. & Hanratty, T. J. 1978 A comparison of linear theory with measurements of the variation of shear stress along a solid wave. Chem. Engng Sci. 33, 579592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tollmien, W.1929 Über die Entstehung der Turbulenz. Nachr. Ges. Wiss. Göttingen, Math.-phys. Kl. 21–44. Translated into English as ‘The production of turbulence’, Tech. Memo. Nat. Adv. Comm. Aero., Wash. No. 609 (1931).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zilker, D. P., Cook, G. W. & Hanratty, T. J. 1977 Influence of the amplitude of a solid wavy wall on a turbulent flow. Part 1. Non-separated flows. J. Fluid Mech. 82, 2951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

On the large difference between Benjamin’s and Hanratty’s formulations of perturbed flow over uneven terrain
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

On the large difference between Benjamin’s and Hanratty’s formulations of perturbed flow over uneven terrain
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

On the large difference between Benjamin’s and Hanratty’s formulations of perturbed flow over uneven terrain
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *