Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-19T04:06:42.085Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Integral relations for the skin-friction coefficient of canonical flows

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 June 2022

Pierre Ricco Open the ORCID record for Pierre Ricco [Opens in a new window]  and
Martin Skote Open the ORCID record for Martin Skote [Opens in a new window]
Pierre Ricco*
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Sheffield, Sheffield S1 3JD, UK
Martin Skote
Affiliation:
School of Aerospace, Transport and Manufacturing, Cranfield University, Cranfield MK43 0AL, UK
*
†Email address for correspondence: p.ricco@sheffield.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We show that the Fukagata et al.'s (Phys. Fluids, vol. 14, no. 11, 2002, pp. 73–76) identity for free-stream boundary layers simplifies to the von Kármán momentum integral equation relating the skin-friction coefficient and the momentum thickness when the upper bound in the integrals used to obtain the identity is taken to be asymptotically large. If a finite upper bound is used, the terms of the identity depend spuriously on the bound itself. Differently from channel and pipe flows, the impact of the Reynolds stresses on the wall-shear stress cannot be quantified in the case of free-stream boundary layers because the Reynolds stresses disappear from the identity. The infinite number of alternative identities obtained by performing additional integrations on the streamwise momentum equation also all simplify to the von Kármán equation. Analogous identities are found for channel flows, where the relative influence of the physical terms on the wall-shear stress depends on the number of successive integrations, demonstrating that the laminar and turbulent contributions to the skin-friction coefficient are only distinguished in the original identity discovered by Fukagata et al. (Phys. Fluids, vol. 14, no. 11, 2002, pp. 73–76). In the limit of large number of integrations, these identities degenerate to the definition of skin-friction coefficient and a novel twofold-integration identity is found for channel and pipe flows. In addition, we decompose the skin-friction coefficient uniquely as the sum of the change of integral thicknesses with the streamwise direction, following the study of Renard & Deck (J. Fluid Mech., vol. 790, 2016, pp. 339–367). We utilize an energy thickness and an inertia thickness, which is composed of a thickness related to the mean-flow wall-normal convection and a thickness linked to the streamwise inhomogeneity of the mean streamwise velocity. The contributions of the different terms of the streamwise momentum equation to the friction drag are thus quantified by these integral thicknesses.

JFM classification

Waves/Free-surface Flows: Channel flow Turbulent Flows: Shear layer turbulence
Type
JFM Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 943 , 25 July 2022 , A50
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by 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

REFERENCES

Bannier, A., Garnier, É. & Sagaut, P. 2015 Riblet flow model based on an extended FIK identity. Flow Turbul. Combust. 95, 351–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bender, M. & Orszag, S.A. 1999 Advanced Mathematical Methods for Scientists and Engineers – Asymptotic Methods and Perturbation Theory. Springer.Google Scholar
Deck, S., Renard, N., Laraufie, R. & Weiss, P.-E. 2014 Large-scale contribution to mean wall shear stress in high-reynolds-number flat-plate boundary layers up to $Re_{\theta }= 13\ 650$. J. Fluid Mech. 743, 202–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drela, M. 2009 Power balance in aerodynamic flows. AIAA J. 47 (7), 1761–1771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duan, Y., Zhong, Q., Wang, G., Zhang, P. & Li, D. 2021 Contributions of different scales of turbulent motions to the mean wall-shear stress in open channel flows at low-to-moderate Reynolds numbers. J. Fluid Mech. 918, A40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elnahhas, A. & Johnson, P.L. 2022 On the enhancement of boundary layer skin friction by turbulence: an angular momentum approach. J. Fluid Mech. 940, A36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fan, Y., Atzori, M., Vinuesa, R., Gatti, D., Schlatter, P. & Li, W. 2022 Decomposition of the mean friction drag on an NACA-4412 airfoil under uniform blowing/suction. J. Fluid Mech. 932, A31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fan, Y., Li, W., Atzori, M., Pozuelo, R., Schlatter, P. & Vinuesa, R. 2020 Decomposition of the mean friction drag in adverse-pressure-gradient turbulent boundary layers. Phys. Rev. Fluids 5, 114608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fan, Y., Li, W. & Pirozzoli, S. 2019 Decomposition of the mean friction drag in zero-pressure-gradient turbulent boundary layers. Phys. Fluids 31 (8), 086105.Google Scholar
Fukagata, K., Iwamoto, K. & Kasagi, N. 2002 Contribution of Reynolds stress distribution to the skin friction in wall-bounded flows. Phys. Fluids 14 (11), 73–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinze, J.O. 1975 Turbulence, 2nd edn. McGraw Hill, Inc.Google Scholar
Hoyas, S. & Jiménez, J. 2006 Scaling of the velocity fluctuations in turbulent channels up to $Re_\tau =2003$. Phys. Fluids 18, 011702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kametani, Y. & Fukagata, K. 2011 Direct numerical simulation of spatially developing turbulent boundary layers with uniform blowing or suction. J. Fluid Mech. 681 (1), 154–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kametani, Y., Fukagata, K., Örlü, R. & Schlatter, P. 2015 Effect of uniform blowing/suction in a turbulent boundary layer at moderate Reynolds number. Intl J. Heat Fluid Flow 55, 132–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kametani, Y., Fukagata, K., Örlü, R. & Schlatter, P. 2016 Drag reduction in spatially developing turbulent boundary layers by spatially intermittent blowing at constant mass-flux. J. Turbul. 17 (10), 913–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kawata, T. & Alfredsson, P.H. 2019 Scale interactions in turbulent rotating planar Couette flow: insight through the Reynolds stress transport. J. Fluid Mech. 879, 255–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mehdi, F., Johansson, T.G., White, C.M. & Naughton, J.W. 2014 On determining wall shear stress in spatially developing two-dimensional wall-bounded flows. Exp. Fluids 55 (1), 1656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Modesti, D., Pirozzoli, S., Orlandi, P. & Grasso, F. 2018 On the role of secondary motions in turbulent square duct flow. J. Fluid Mech. 847, 631–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monte, S., Sagaut, P. & Gomez, T. 2011 Analysis of turbulent skin friction generated in flow along a cylinder. Phys. Fluids 23 (6), 065106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikora, V.I., Stoesser, T., Cameron, S.M., Stewart, M., Papadopoulos, K., Ouro, P., McSherry, R., Zampiron, A., Marusic, I. & Falconer, R.A. 2019 Friction factor decomposition for rough-wall flows: theoretical background and application to open-channel flows. J. Fluid Mech. 872, 626–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pope, S.B. 2000 Turbulent Flows. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pryce, J.D. 2014 Basic Methods of Linear Functional Analysis. Courier Corporation.Google Scholar
Renard, N. & Deck, S. 2016 A theoretical decomposition of mean skin friction generation into physical phenomena across the boundary layer. J. Fluid Mech. 790, 339–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sbragaglia, M. & Sugiyama, K. 2007 Boundary induced nonlinearities at small Reynolds numbers. Phys. D: Nonlinear Phenom. 228 (2), 140–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schlichting, H. & Gersten, K. 2003 Boundary-Layer Theory. Springer.Google Scholar
Sillero, J.A., Jiménez, J. & Moser, R.D. 2013 One-point statistics for turbulent wall-bounded flows at Reynolds numbers up to $\delta ^+$=2000. Phys. Fluids 25 (10), 105102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spalart, P.R. & Watmuff, J.H. 1993 Experimental and numerical study of a turbulent boundary layer with pressure gradients. J. Fluid Mech. 249, 337–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stroh, A., Frohnapfel, B., Schlatter, P. & Hasegawa, Y. 2015 A comparison of opposition control in turbulent boundary layer and turbulent channel flow. Phys. Fluids 27 (7), 075101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Dyke, M. 1975 Perturbation Methods in Fluid Mechanics. The Parabolic Press.Google Scholar
Wenzel, C., Gibis, T. & Kloker, M. 2022 About the influences of compressibility, heat transfer and pressure gradients in compressible turbulent boundary layers. J. Fluid Mech. 930, A1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xia, Q.-J., Huang, W.-X., Xu, C.-X. & Cui, G.-X. 2015 Direct numerical simulation of spatially developing turbulent boundary layers with opposition control. Fluid Dyn. Res. 47 (2), 025503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoon, M., Ahn, J., Hwang, J. & Sung, H.J. 2016 Contribution of velocity-vorticity correlations to the frictional drag in wall-bounded turbulent flows. Phys. Fluids 28 (8), 081702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zeidler, E. 2012 Applied Functional Analysis: Main Principles and their Applications, vol. 109. Springer Science & Business Media.Google Scholar
Zhang, W., Zhang, H.-N., Li, J., Yu, B. & Li, F. 2020 Comparison of turbulent drag reduction mechanisms of viscoelastic fluids based on the Fukagata-Iwamoto-Kasagi identity and the Renard-Deck identity. Phys. Fluids 32 (1), 013104.Google Scholar