Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-pkt8n Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-21T02:43:49.492Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

On the neutral curve of the flat-plate boundary layer: comparison between experiment, Orr–Sommerfeld theory and asymptotic theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 April 2006

J. J. Healey
Affiliation:
Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge, Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 1PZ, UK

Abstract

The neutral stability curve for the flat-plate boundary layer has been calculated using the Orr–Sommerfeld equation and compared to those obtained using upper- and lower-branch scalings. The Orr–Sommerfeld results agree well with the lower-branch scaling at Reynolds numbers relevant to experiment, but agree well with the upper-branch scaling only for Rδ > 105. It is shown that the critical layer only emerges from the viscous wall layer when Rδ > 105. This suggests that for Rδ < 105, when the critical layer lies within the viscous wall layer, the disturbance has a triple-deck structure, even for the upper branch of the neutral curve (which can be reached if the phase jump across the critical layer is retained).

The transition from a triple-deck to a five-deck structure with increasing Reynolds number on the upper branch occurs relatively abruptly and can be associated with a square-root branch point in the Tietjens function. Essentially, the lower- and upper-branch scalings pertain to two different modes, the first possessing a triple-deck structure, the second a five-deck structure. The modes are connected at the branch point, and the neutral curves of each mode join to give a single curve close to this branch point. The asymptotic expansions for the upper- and lower-branch neutral curves depend upon the analyticity of the dispersion relationship, and so the proximity of the branch point indicates where these expansions will be liable to inaccuracies. This explains the poor neutral-curve predictions made by five-deck analyses at the Reynolds numbers where transition occurs.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 1995 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

Bodonyi, R. J. & Smith, F. T. 1981 Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 375, 6592.
Cowley, S. J. & Wu, X. 1993 Special course on progress in transition modelling. AGARD Rep. 793.Google Scholar
Davey, A. 1982 In Stability in the Mechanics of Continua (ed. F. H. Schroeder), pp. 365372. Springer.
Goldstein, M. E. 1983 J. Fluid Mech. 127, 5981.
Goldstein, M. E. & Durbin, P. A. 1986 Phys. Fluids 29, 23442345.
Hall, P. & Smith, F. T. 1982 Stud. Appl. Maths 66, 241265.
Hultgren, L. S. 1987 Phys. Fluids 30, 29472951.
Klingmann, B. G. B., Boiko, A. V., Westin, K. J. A., Kozlov, V. V. & Alfredsson, P. H. 1993 Eur. J. Mech. B/ Fluids 12, 493514.
Reid, W. H. 1965 In Basic Developments in Fluid Dynamics, vol. 1 (ed. M. Holt), pp. 249307. Academic.
Ross, J. A., Barnes, F. H., Burnes, J. G. & Ross, M. A. S. 1970 J. Fluid Mech. 43, 819832.
Saric, W. S. 1990 In Instability and Transition, vol. 1 (ed. M. Y. Hussaini & R. G. Voigt), pp. 162174. Springer.
Smith, F. T. 1979 Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 366, 91109.
Wu, X., Stewart, P. A. & Cowley, S. J. 1995 On the weakly nonlinear development of Tollmien–Schlicting wavetrains in boundary layers. J. Fluid Mech. (to appear).Google Scholar