You are on page 1of 142

C.P. No.

829

MINISTRY OF AVIATION
AEl?ONAUTICAL RESEARCHCOUNCIL
CURRENT PAPERS

A Unified Theory
Transfer
Turbulent

of Friction, Heat

and AAass Transfer


Boundary

Layer and Wall Jet


BY

D. B. Spalding

Mechanical EngineeringDepartment,

lmperid College of Scienceand Technology,

LONDON:

in the

HER MAJESTYS

STATIONERY

1965

Price &I. 5s. Od. net

OFFICE

C.P. No.829
-i-

unified

theory

transfer

of

December, 1964

best

friction,

trcans.Cer aad mass

in the turbulent -- boundary. layer


,
bY
D. B. Spalding"

andwall.

jet

Mechanical
Engineering
Department,
Imperial
College of Science and Techcol-ogy,
London, S.W,7, Xngl.and.

General

equations

arc derived

mass, momentum and any other


solution

is made possible

three-parameter

by means of:
(b)

ment from the mainstream

into

flows

along

gradient;

smooth walls:
wall

in stagnant

realistic

layer.

with

to provide

transfer

reversal,

The main barrier

to further

the way in which

entrainment

with

'

the

pressure
the wall

jet

in the absence
to be sufficiently
single

roughness,

cal.culation
operate
threeeffects.

is uncertainty

is influenced

variations,

* Professrx
of Heat Transfer.
Replaces A.R,c. 25, 325.

plate;

and variable-property
progress

entrainApplic-

even when these

and in conjunction
flow

appear
a simple

the above processes,

simultaneously

flat

mass transfer;

and heat

of

uniform-property

of an adverse

The assumptions

and flexible

method for

dimensional,

plate

and their

the boundary
plane

of

(a) introduction

the impermeable

surroundings;

of mass transfer.

property,

about

in the presence

the flat

the conservation

a hypothesis

are made to the following

impermeable

conserved

profiles.,

ations

for

by density

about
:

Contents
-page
1.

2.

--Introduction --.

1.1

The problem

I.2

The need for

1.3

Outline

1.4

Restrictions

2.2

a new theory

of the present

theory

of the present

Mathematical
---I-2.1

considered

4
paper

theoa

Definitions

and differential

Velocity

profile

equations

and drag

law (uniform

density)
2.3

The &profile

and the flux

law (uniform

density)

12

2.4

The integral

2.5

A preliminary

2.6

Appreciation

expressions
entrainment

39

--The

law

boundary-layer

problem

development

The stationary-state

boundary

layer

turbulent

boundary

-la=

-- flat-plate

3.3

The nature

3.2

Equations

3.3

Deductions

from experimental

3.4

Derivation

of a local

flat
3.5

16

of the mathematical

of predicting
2.7

15

- 22
23

of the problem

23

24
data-for

drag law for

,H

plate

27

The validity

of the stationary-state
28

The smooth izermeable


--

_-wall;

influence

-- of

Eressuresadient
-_1_
WI-4.1

Comparison

30

with

the drag

law of

I&wieg

and Tillmann
4.2

4.3

25

the

hypothesis
4.

18

30

Stationary-state

boundary

adverse

gradient

pressure

Comparison

with

experimental

layer

with

an
31

l?2-I-J data

3*3

-iii-

page
4.4
5.

6.

Comparison

with

Head's

5.1

Prediction

5.2

The entrainment

5.3

An analytical

theory

mass transfer

on drag

of the local

38

6.2

The local

6.3

Variations

drag

drag law.

for

of

surroundins-

45
45

law

47

deduction

constant

48

w&l1 temperature

7.1

Equations

7.2

The isothermal

flat

7.3

Adiabatic-wall

temperature

7.4

the effect

42

Heat
transfer-------L----------in the absence
-

local

39
41

in the s-direction:

The adiabatic

39

law

The wall jet in stafrnant


----~-----&--.--------6.1 Velocity
profiles

6.4

8.

law

Yjass
in the absence
----I----- transfer
_I- of_pressure
---gadient;
theory.
--II
- quasi-stationary
-----

of the entrainment

7.

entrainment

52

of mass transfer

55

heat

plate

57

downstream

of a

sink

59

Summary

Discussion
------

55

63

oQossible
---up

-developments
-----

further

8.1

Plane uniform-property

8.2

Three-dimensional

8.3

The infl

64

flows

64

flows

uence of property

67

variations

68
71

10.

Acknowledgements
--------Nomenclature
----A-

ll.

References
------

77

9.

Figures

1 to .29.
Additional

Appendix.
encircled
Figures

72

numerals
A-l

toA-5.

notes,

referred

in the margins

to by

of the

text.

I.

Introduction.
---I,-,,
The Eroblem
------m------considered.

1,

I.1

Fig.

illustrates

a steady

stream

a porous

of fluid

edge of the surface


also

enters,

direction

in the surface

pores

two;

near

the wall

exist

in this

yet

another

is

between

the surface,

stream;

composition

reactions

between

compressors
numerous

often

is

of the wall

be resorted

porous

occurs

processes

features

in a great
If

slot

wall;

which

or

only

one

porous

one of boundaryit

arises

wings,

devices.

Injection

and in
of fluid

so as to lower
of the slot

in diffusers,

the temp-

(film-cooling);

to ds a means of preventing

separation.

combustion,

The velocity

simultaneously,

on aircraft

provided

boundary-layer

mass-transfer

fluids;

and chemical

contains

through

downstream

similar

is the familiar

engineering

erature

hydrodynamically

the various

importance.

an impermeable

a slot

surface

existing

heating";

in Fig.

of-practical

through

may also

"kinetic

not usually

and turbines,

other

may,

and the secondary

between

(no injection

along

variations

may .be non-uniform.

the situation

flow

the

in. the region

one or more of the fluids.,

many circumstances

layer

through

differences

the main stream

though

is present

the

of one or more of the

temperature

represented

are present,

the.pores

to join

Large'property

differences

of the main stream


The flow

Through

The flow

as a result

i.e.

in the same

may flow

direction.

region

effects,

of a second fluid

may flow

fluid

exposed to

At the upstream

of velocity

fluid

turbulent.

influences;

surface),

extznt.

stream

alternatively,'

frictional

surface

of the main stream.

following

it

a narrower

in the op?ositc

fluid

of large

havin g a component
at'; that

previous

solid

Injection

in transpiration
effects

of fluid
cooling;

are produced

as s*dbli.mation,

through

a
.

and
by such

vaporisation

and

2.

The ultimate
paper

aim of the work reported

is the provision

of a theory

the shear

stress

and the rates

the wall,

in situations

The need for


---v---------s-*

1.2

Present
summarised
of:-

Schlichting

of turbulent

[4d , Lin

books,

[21].

which

ing theories

in these

for

is

example

those

[62] , Hinze

works,

[Is).,

much useful
it

is not

of the comprehensive-

to the boundary

ar e unsatisfactory..in
of these,

survey

611,

by Thompson

of predicting
gradient

is

which

that

be referred

by Thompson to be reasonably

whole

range

mentally.

Another

existing

theories

out by examination
8.3)';

be2n extended
Although
concerning

with

several

papers

stream

of an injection

little

success

experimental

profiles

a varying

wall
slot

such as that

has been achieved


data.

data

theories

kd

have not
velocity.

been published
the flow
of Fig;

in rationalising

As an illustration

are not

main-stream

i.e.

of

out to involve
which

have recently
jet,

experi-

of compress-

turn

and in any case these

the so-called

over the

of the experimental

to deal

was

even the best

the effect

e.g. Ll66

the velocity

about

section

for

drag

successful

is that

accounting

below,

have been explored

shortcoming

on flat-plate

implications

that

pressure

the method of

to again

found

of methods

in an adverse
only

One

by the thorough

the majority

growth

of conditions

exist-

sever,21 respects.

unreliable;

will

without

studied,

made manifest

boundary-layer

are decidedly

Head pa),

layer

has been most thoroughly

of the most serious

(see

at

is desired.

injection,

borne

layers

Although

from them a theory

Even when restricted

ibility

'

of Fig,

[24] , Thwaites

and Leont'ev

to extract

ness that

and mass transfer

boundary

modern text

is to be found

possible

of

a new theory.

in several

information

the predictions

of heat

such as those

knowledge

and Kutateladze

for

in the present

of this

downI,
the
point,

Fig.
for

2 shows the shear


the uniform-density

The theoretical

2
3

stress

from

the plausible

profile

near the wall

from Sigalla

assumption

and Bradshaw

greater

shear

the shear

the point

of zero velocity
it

is usual

can be reconciled
Current
through

the wall

stances

of uniform

from

a slot.

data

into

success

disagreements

Pappas and Okuno


coefficient

is

numbers than
the process

it

is

there

and other

theories,

the existing

methods

of prediction

and aesthetically

a single

particularised

seeks

retain

turbulent

set

merely

the scientist

their

flows

*See section

that

of general
by striking

a single
validity

near walls.

6.2 below.

meagre

qualitative
for

example,

the heat-transfer

all

at high
theories

Mach
of

tendency.

available

eer seeks

some major

by mass transfer

of currently

disadvantageous

have met with

at low Mach numbers;

these

injection
experimental

and experiment;

less

from

to circum-

the available

exist

flow

without

framework

the opposite

apart

and

of mass transfer

restricted

627 have reported

imply

Quite

all

theory

affected

Bradshaw

by

fact.

velocity,

theoretical

between

points,

exhibit

of turbulent

entirely

to fit

Moreover

form

are calculated

that

surprising

main-stream

Efforts

[5s] .

is

of the influence

is almost

a single

the velocity

to have a -w-m
finite
magnitude at
gradient;
none of the hypotheses

this

knowledge

who

"universal"

than

to base theories

with

velocity.

[13],

and Gee [3],

stresses

stress

number

the experimental

Even more disconcerting

on which

that

has the well-known

Gee found

which

by Glauert

of maximum velocity;
p8]

Glauert*.

the Reynolds

zero main-stream

was deduced

started

appreciably

cas e with

line

up to the point

versus

set
over

individual

failures

the fragmentariness

of

is both practically
The engin-

displeasing.
equations

which

out irrelevant
of physical

can be
terms;

hypotheses

the whole range

of

Even the comprehensive

work

of Kutateladze

and Leont'ev

(i most ambitious
from

attempt

a unified

dimensional
theory

PI],

to treat

point

of view,

all

so far

the

boundary-layer

omits

The need for

effects.

is

wall-jet

phenomena

and three-

a new and complete

is evi&nt.
Outline

of the_prcsent
theorg.
-----The present paper describes
some aspects

1.3

theory

which

is being

described.

This

developed

theory

has resulted
the author

interest

mixing

in tur'bulent

the absence
heat

of walls

transfer

53,

data

- [50, 3d ;and

the flow

of a wall,
that

c561

could

while

others

near

layer,

in boundary

in friction,
layers

be reconciled

52,

jet

experimental

by postulating
in tha absence
with

obeyed the usual

any spatial

[51,

44, 45, 46,

were more in accord

without

an

were caused to impinge

a turbulent

the wall

of

phenomena in

7, 8, 16, 17, 33,

behaved like

the flow

boundary

data

colleagues:

the now numerous

[67,

471 ; some of these

the interplay

an interest

of study

to rationalise

on film-cooling

that

and his

and mass transftir

by an attempt

from

and entrainment

These two streams

541 0

of a new

to meet the need just

two preoccupations.of

the view

laws of the

effects

of tha jet

The new theory


first

is that

profiles

rests

with

have both

The second is

prove'to

with

for

that

fluid

when adequately

of momentum, heat
accounting

thus

the general

and "jet"

is

entrained

is

into

into

components.
the wall

a turbulent

quantitative
expressed

two main

and the other

"boundary-layer"

similar

be strong

effects

laws.

jet

a theory

layer

and in

These assump-

in mathematical

enough to support

The

and concentration
having

the main stream;

in the same manner as it

tions,

by formulae

to the wall,

interactions

accordance

temperature

one accounting

and mass transfer

profiles

on two main postulates.

the velocity,

can be described

components,

for

which

form,
covering

all

the phenomena which


particularly

WE:have discussed

interesting

applicability

is

namely

new liy&t
layer.

the
of

to be throwing

of the turbulent

boundary

became appartint

that

Thus the formulae


to be similar

the description
however

for

[38]

should

and Colzs

b]

to exploit

that

the

function
Head's

theory

other

in predicting

entrainment
postulate

about

freedom

from detailed.

advantageous
and reliable,
author

It

together

experimental

no guide
entrainment

may

inaccurate)

growth.
linked

of the

than

any

However,

his

although

this

would have been

assumption

left

the

or refine

function.

'to regard

the present

with

form

as to how to extrapolate

be helpful

and Coles

of

data had been more numerous

therefore

of the profile

author

to any particular

profiles;

commitments

contribut-

been mentioned,

the absence of a profile

with

empirical

if

was not

out

This

to be more successful

the velocity

profile

significant

an approximate

boundary-layer

hypothesis

had

because

was a function

As has already

has proved

discovery

by Head h8] .

of entrainment

empirically.

authors

hypothasis.turned

in a highly

and obtained

the shape factor,

these

circumstances.

theory,
rato

out

why any particular

of entrainment

to boundary-layer

turned

by Ross and Robertson

their

about

to have been put forward,

supposed

profiles

findings;

in any particular
a form

soon

as a means of systematising

of experimental

Further,

it

were not new at all,

put forward

a hypothesis

exist

elements

the velocity

not been able

lacked

had been conceived,

its

to thosa

[3g , Rotta

Rotta

to extend

to a new set

appears

problems

Once the ltnewtl theory

ion

theory

the wall-jet,

on classical

What is

an attempt

of boundary-layer

phenomena,

they

that

so far.

(though

assumptions
the entrainment

theory

historically
as a putting

of Ross andRobertson,
hypothesis

of Head,

his

6.
followed

by an extension

transfer

and injection

of further

entrainment

Horton,
1.4

to flows

hypothesis

heat'and

with

the handling

has been influenced

and Turner

[74],

the promise

three-dimensional

and
of the

by studies

phenomena of meteorology

Taylor

mass

and carrying

Further,

effects.

some turbulence

with

from slots,

extensions

varying-property

to flows

of

by Bntchelor[72],

and Morton

[75,

761.

Restrictions

of the present
paper.
-is of course
The development
of the new-theory

major

undertaking,

For this

will

and implications

in the pr osent

with

take

some time

and so as to exhibitmore

reason,

main elements
dealt

which

to complete.
clearly

the

of the theory,

the flows

arti subject

to the foliow-

paper

ing rastrictions:(i)

The density,

thermal

viscosity,,specific
of the fluid

conductivity

heat

are uniform

and

throughout

the stream.
$3 2 wall

(ii)
(iii)
given

The velocity

normal
It

should

is

that

thrqugh

lie

in a single

be understood

that

it

radically

new hypotheses.

2.
2.1

these

points

on a

plane.
restrictions

are

the present

can accommodate variable-property,

and three-dimensional

will

all

One of the main attractionsof

roughness

matters

smooth.

vectors

to the wall

not necessarxi
theory

is hydrodynamically

'ba found

effects

A brief

in section

without

discussion

of these

8 below.
\

Pisthernatical
-----v-atheor;ll.
--Dzfinitions ------__I
and differential
Some of the notation"

requiring

which

equations+.
will

be used is

Underlines
dznotz italics.
' Note to printer:
howeverbzen
omitted
from equations,
wherein
should be italicised
except d, In, cos, sin,
*Footnote:
A full
list
of notation
will
be found in section
IO below.

and its

illustrated

They have
all letters
exp.
significance

7.

in Eli@;, 3, showing
velocity

profiles

g and of a conserved

against

the non-dimensional

The subscript
script

G denotes

S denotes

The distance
a quantity

xG is
which

specification

(section

2.2 below);

and composition
quantity

or for

of the
for

conservation

to the wall.

significant

are regarded

by math-

for

mixture

property

be concerned

with

temijerature

the stagnation
which

three

is subject

important
Q,

I?= s o (p/p,)

Z dC

valid

for

1
c
(P/P~)
L3E s,

z2dE;

section
for

We remark
are related
theory,

uniform

however,

also

to a

integral

I2 and I+'

These

. . . . ..(2.1-1)

0.0...(2.1-2)

(ti - ei,> b/P,)

present

enthalpy,

by:

omitted;

The

of some chemically

Of course,

layer'1g

as uniform.

the composition

of the z and @ profiles:

are defined

sub-

law.

We shall
properties

while

y > EG the velocity,

for

<.

shape of the profiles

of the mi;rture,

any other

state

of the boundary

rendered

of the fluid

component

from the wall

adjacent

"thickness

only

@ may stand

0, plotted

distance

of the fluid

the

is

property

the main-stream

that

ematical

inert

of the non-dimensional

to

density,

the term

the definitions
(i.e.

varying

three

be expkessed

density,

in pa ssing

that

familiar

the displacement

since

it

concepts

in the

in a form

is easy to do this.

the quantities

thickness

ness b2 and the shape factor

o/pG may be

and equations

will

2.1)

. o e.. . (2.1-3)

z dE

Ll and L2

of boundary-layer

b19 the momentum thick-

g, by:

6&t

= 1 - 11

.,...;(2.1-4)

b2/Y(3

= II

.00w(2.1-5)

H-'

yS2

-12

= (1 - Iq)/(Iq

54

. . . . ..(2.1-6)

8.

Five

differ6n.t

used at various
relate

definitions

points

to a single

while

the fifth

wall.

of Reynolds

in the analysis.

section

through

(Rx) relates

number will

The first

the boundary

to the distance

be

four
layer,

along

the

They are:-

RG E

PG "G :T,/i+G

R2 =

pG UG "2&G=

RmI

YG
5 o (P'dj+Y

. . . . .-(2.1-7)
(Iq-12)tiG

. . . ..(2.1-8)

. . . ..(2.1-y)

= 11 RG

. . . ..(2.1-IO)
. . . ..(2.1-II)

Three conservation
having

equations

can now bt! written,

the form of a first-order


The first

equation.

ordinary

expresses

each

differential

the law of conservation

of

mass:

z-

1
Here p! is

+ 'mGEJ2-

the non-dimensional

the boundary

layer
mr

The quantity
entrainment
layer,

mG is

by

through
;'I/(

defined

that

d(lnw)/dzx

w is

proportional

. . . ..(2.1-13)

that

-his

the rat2
into

of

the boundary

may be regarded

as being

(2.1-'12).

w is

the distance
parallel

vanishes.

between

adjacent

to the surface

For two-dimensional

flows,

2 is

from the axis

equation

of momentum applied

represents

stream-

and normal
constant

For axially-symmetrical

to the distance

The second differential


of conservation

it

into

by:-

PGuG>

pGsG;

in the direction

to the flow.

. . . ..(2.1-72)

of mass transfer

the wall',

so defined

by equation

The quantity
lines

rate

of mass from the main stream

divided

defined

= -mG + m 1

so
flows

of symmetry.
the law

to the boundary

layer.

9.
It

is:
d(lnuG)
+ (1 -t H)R2----d%

dR2

-dRx

Here 2 is defined

d(lnw)
+ R2 ----d Rx

=. s +, m

by:

S;= 't: /(pGU(-f)


(A more usual,
~$2;

the significance
that

quantity

T is

equation
close

the shear

shortly

functions

letter

stress

replace

of ttshear'l).

at the wall.

it

The

The momentum

in a form which

one for

by noting

is

sufficiently

to be recognised;

however,

I?2 and ,H by grn and appropriate

of z,, and L2.

The last

differential

conservation

the L'S,

equation

of the property

This .equation

pI.

has betin written

since

there

ferred-substance
explanation

directly

Equations
if

transfer

state",

a concept
in

@ brought

about

(2.1-12),

predictions

which

of friction,

for

unless

betwocn

these

consider

these

and mass

counting

will

We shall

rate

have to be

transfer

solution

be found.

if

the flow

and (2.1-16)

However a simple

more relations

trans-

at the wall.

number of unknowns shows that


several

"the

is explained,

itf$3, is

heat

of Em and
counter-

by the fluxes

(2.'1-14)

are to be made.

T stands

; thus

i$j

law of

in terms

are no conventionally-used

be needed,

of the entity

exprcs%csthe

It'is:

to R-2 and 11. The subscript

solved

s would be

of 2 may be remembered

has been expressed

we shall

for

symbol

s is the initial

to the usual

parts

. . . ..(2.1-15)

but more clumsy,

the fact

. . ..(2.1-14)

of the

not be possible
quantitias

can

in the following

sections.
2.2

V_elocity
It

will

uniform-density

profile w---sand drag MP


law (uniform
----be assumed that
,conditions,

the velocity

density),
profile,

may be represented

under
with

IO.

sufficient

accuracy

by the relation:

z=sL++(1-

0
3

z&:1

Here SE is
later,

a parameter

and g+ is

distance

from

y-+z

a function

will

. . . ..(2.2-1)

assum

great

importance

of y_-', the non-dimensional

defined

by:
. . . ..(2.2-2)

Yh P >%iJ-

The function
region

which

the wall

ig/2

- COSTt

g+(y')

is

immediately

obtained

adjacent

to the wall,

ment or by semi-thoorotical
of mass transfer
well-known

analysis.

shall

we

by study

experimental
m=O:

either
Thus,

assume,

findings

of the flow

in the absence

in accordance

with

and idealisations

= 2.5ln(Ey+)

U+

by experi-

[41]:

. . . ..(2.2-3)

where E, is a constant*.
When mass transfer
the more general
Sarnecki

p]

we shall

l'bi-logarithmic't
This

holds.

u+ = 2.5

is present,

law of Black

and

is:

+-;-;;T
.

ln(E'y')

presume'that

[ln(wy+)]

")

. ..(2.2-4)

Here E_' is expected to bti a function


of g, or rather
3
m/s
-- w; E_' must equal 8, when ; equals zero.
By combining equations
(2.2-l),
(2.2-k),
(2.2-2)
the 'expression

we obtain

2.1-7),

general

in a sufficiently
It

for

form for

the velocity

of

and

profile

the present

purposes.

&n(E1TiG's3E;

)]

is:
1
~d.5~~

ln(EtRGs*

r> + 1.5625m

+ (IThis

relation

transfer

clearly

modifies

the wall.
*Footnote.

-cos

z&l
takes

the stress

account

,....(2.2-5)

of the fact

variation

along

that

a normal

mass
to

t
E, is

often

taken

however

remain

uncommitted

,present

stage,

and shall

gives

n;t3/2

2 +

the best

fit

with

as equal

to 9.025.

to any particular
dettirmine

experimental

E, later

We shall

number at the
in a way which

drag data.

11.

The corresponding
the time

being

effect

neglected,

The. apparent inconsistency


the mass-transfer
effect
while

since

it

is

justified

near

rises

The experimental

Ludwieg

and Tillmann

neglect

of the pressure-gradient

discussed

further

. Equation
and 5 are both
the boundary
resulting

p5)

more rapidly
velocity

to the

than

distance

profiles

of

in support

effect.

This

of the

matter

is

values

drsg -- law,

at the outer

when z
limit

A convenient

of

form

of the

is:

s g (0.4
wherein

is proportional

namely unity.

equation

that

to the velocity,

the -----local

their

layer,

small.

4.

yields

given

is for

by the facts

can be cited

in section

(2.2-5)

is relatively

effect

and the velocity

the wall.

gradient

is proportional

the -pressure-gradient

distance;

of pressure

-!F

- 0.625ml)*

. . . ..(2.2-6)

we have used the abbreviation:


1 s ln(E'

Equation
to render

(2.2-6)

the latter

fiGsi)

. . . . . (2.2-7)

can be re-introduced

into

(2.2-5)
There

somewhat more transparent.

results:
z = (2.5s3+

3.125ml)lng

+ 1.5625m(lnc)*

f- zE + (1 - zE)(l
For the purpose
(2.2-8)
accuracy

05

z --,Dlnc

wd can drop

. ..(2.2-8)

- eos 76<)/ii?

of evaluating

is unnccesssrily

the L-integrals,

elaborate.

With

little

equation
loss

the (In < )2 term and so obtain:

+ zE + ('l-

z,)(l-

cosz<)/2

. . . ..(2.2-9)

where:
DS 2.5~2

2.5(s+

+ 3.125ml

mzE)-3

. . . ..(2.2-IO)

of

12.
Possibly

the

last

of these

the most informative;


governing

it

th:lt

implies

the logarithmic

is not the wall

alternative

portion

the shear

for

quantity

2 is

stress

of the velocity

g, but that

stress

forms

profile

augmented by

the stress

mzr;
---I which is necessary to raise the injected
mass to th3 (non-dimensional)
velocity
gE.
Inspection
equation

of equation

reprc:aents

the parameters

be +

profile

hand,

and g are the obvious

It

will

property

2 and n/s.

by equation
family;

zz

to choose.

law (uniform

be assumed that

g through

or zE,

a two-parameter

parameters

this

of'profiles;;

represented

is

The @-profile
1-p-- and flux

2.3

that

family

KG and ;,

family

on the other

G--Y),

reveals

a three-paramekr

might

The approximate

(2.2-8)

density)

the variation

the boundary

layer

of the conserved

can bs represented

by:

+ @G
c9

. . . ..(2+I)
whcra tt

is ;I function

obtained

of y+,

Couette-flow

analysis

similar

to that

Sincethe-t+

function

appears

less

than

the g+ function,

derived.
finite

we shall

mass-transfer

Jayatillaka

for

entering

rates

hcrc

flow,

small

made by Spalding
transfer

rates

the only

laws represent

Thus the momentum equation

the wall.

how it

is

as an extension

by definition,

the cons,ervation

_ .
y+

in the literature

indicate

of that

vanishingly

In a Couette

often

out a

+-to

relating-2

can be regarded

The analysis

by carrying

fluxes

to
and

[551.
- c
terms
normal

to

and the @-conservation

equdion'are:z

+ 1;1"u = /$

. . . ..(2.3-2)

du/dy

and
. *. . .

where
-fit

is the

VotaF

(i.e.

laminar

plus

turbulent)

(2, 3-9)

13.

viscosity
i.e.
\
;

and

rt

is the corresponding

diffusion

coefficient

divided

by specific

ivity

appropriate

times
heat,

to the property

Division

leads

coefficient,

density

or thermal

according

to which

conductis

@.

of corresponding

and (2.3-T)

exchange

terms

in equations

(2.3-2)

to:

du
dlZ1 =
M---ww--e
"t u + r/k'"
a - eiT

. . . ..(2.3-4)

rt

. . . ..(2.3+)

where
= /"it/

rt

Let us now suppose that


of a "total"

Prandtl

throughout
wall,

apart

the so-called

ld - Ids
a--@s - !$

where
P-=

evaluated

u)

cr"exp(;":

t+ =

close

WC

to the

Then we can write

if

2'

PJ - 1

. ..(2.3-6)

. . . ..(2.3-7)

1 + ms--h+

is defined

a Couette

as (a-@S)(z

flow,

wO
I+
mu+
( -d
S

du+

"t - "0
-w---c0

for

region

sub-layer.

CFJ
s

Hence,

a thin

has the value

as:

= (1 +$
L

number,

from

laminar

(2.3-4)

which has the significance

or Schmidt

the flow

equation

rt,

-B--N

~)*/{i~~(@S-plTt

we have:

OXP(2
r --------Pm-

, . .(2

3
.

8)
-

m/s a

The quantity
Schmidt

g is

number,

a function

measures

the extra

It

must be admitted
exists

In equation
value
5

lzminar

and of the mass-trcansfer

it

currently

of ths

resistance
however

about

from

is put equal to unity,


to -g& 3 . Thus:

quantity

of the laminar
absolutely

the influence

(2.3-l),

of @ evaluatad

that

Prandtl

sub-layer.

no knowledge

of m/s3
on g.
--

flE has the si@ficance


the Couettc-flow
a. condition

or
1
r.~/s~;

for

of the

expression
which

u,+ is

when
equal

This
the

expression

mey be regarded

l~drivingforceformasn

mass-transfer
will

rate

transfer

; and other

become clearer

as will

as the flux

law connecting

in terms

of @ ",with
Its

quantities,

when particular

the

significance

cases are considered,

be done shortly.

Equ;ltion

(2.3-l),

coupled

and (2.3-q),

(2.3-8)

insertion

has a rrlther

in the integral

approximate

as it

must be with

inconvenient

Me therefore

Lg.

equations

form for
introduce

the

form:

. . . ..(2.+10)

where the quantity


imate

exprLasion

bourhood

I$

to ugr?e with

of the point

entiation

that

these

desirable

2.5wo

general

for

the forms

small

. . . ..(2.3-11)

enthalpy.

are novel,

to which

they

Eirst

Then equation

it

reduce

the specific

enthalpy

flux

$replacing

-"(Q-a,),

$3

reduces

(P + u')

to

h, in place

. . . ..(2.3-12)

of fl and the heat

equation

(2.3-Y)

hE-hS=

equation

the

and suppose
(2.3-8)

in

[55]:

With

desired,

is

we consider

mass transfer,

-t+ = To

If

by differ-

I$ is:

rela-tions

case of vanishingly

form

may be verified

(@E--V

simplicity.

the familiar

one in the neigh-

-2
(s + m z-~)

to exhibit

for

It

expression

cases of particular

to stand

the exact

Y = 1.

a suitab:Le

D%=
Since

chosen So as to cause the spprox-

-is

becomes:
. . . ..(2.3-13)

2 can of course
in favour

be eliminated

of & by reference

from

this

to the drag

law,

equation

(2.2-G),

with

JIJplacad

equal

to zero.

is ths --------------local heat-tmnsfer


law; it
understandable
form.
Finally
we note that,

has?rsadily

2.3-13)

icular

cask,

equation

2.5 co
DPI = ----I(d

The second particular


equal

to unity

rzducs:s

(2.341)

in this

part-

to:

;s
--

. . . ..(2.3-14)

casti is thct

throughout.

Equation

in which

Then 2 equals

zero,

rt

is

and we

find:

This

equation

(2.3-8)--s

equation

(2.3-q)--+

equation

(2.3-11)----t

corrtisponds

. . ..(2.3-17)

over

of the layer,

for

which

and the relevant

2, appearing

ic-ance will

be explained

below

difference

0 and

(section

The integral-I_ expressions.


-v--B
-- -m
Equation
(2.2-g),
on insertion

and (2,1-2),

@ difference

in equations

between

analogy

the Couette-flow

the relevant

velocity

is a. number lying

(2.3-IO),

. . . ..(2.3-16)

and &transport

portion

2.4

%-@S = --m 'E


------%s - %,y
s

of the Reynolds

friction

The quantity

. ..e.(2.3-15)

to the validity

between
-0,
is CJE

t+ = u+

into

is gEgG.
(2.3-l)

I,

and

The signif-

6.4).

equation

(2.2-l)

yields:
II

= $-(I

+k zE) - D

. ..*.(2.4-1)

and
12=g+3
>
Related
II-

~zE+PE

- D(O.411+

1.589

zE) + 2D2
. . . ..(2.4-2)

usefuiexpressions
12= i(l-

arz:

zE)(l,+jzE)+D(l.589zE-0.589)-2D2
. . . ..(2.4-3)

1 - I,,

= $(I-

zB) +D

. . . ..(2.4-4)

I6.
I-12

= ;(I

-z#) (5'.-3zE)+D(iS.411.t1.539

zs)-

2D2

. . . ..(2.4-5)

Insertion
definition

-of equations

(2,2-v)

IpI= (k&4,>

@Cl + z&-g
- Da (0.2055

These equations

terms

into

the

yit?lds:

(2.1-j)

expressed,

and (2.3-10)

the L-intk;grzls

equations

of the varirtbles:

+ 0.791c5zx) + *D Da . . . (2.44)

permit

through

(3+ zE> -DC1 - o.;2055n)3

(2.2-10)

to be

and (2.3-11);

zE, fig- pl,,

in

1, m, and P;E' -

T.

2.5 a A preliminary
-I_.-

entrainmc:nt
-I-------- law.
to obtain a rtilstion
betwlza~ the dimansion-

In order
less

entr.%inment

turn

to information

1ayc.r which
entering

r~.te gG and other


about

is formed

a stagnant

the plane

p3j

free

at the boundary
fluid

(Fig.

we first

turbulent

mixing

of a large

4).

have been measured by Rcichardt


Laufer

properties,

stream

The velocity

profiles

and by Licpmsnn

[34]

They cCa.nbe approximately

and

represented

by

the formula:
z = $(I

- cosx <)

where now, in the definitions


velocity

of the entering

to the stream

from

correspondingly

Reichardt
0.21,

while

value

of 0.26.

fitting
is

a certain

profile

if

entrainmant
having

and xG is
The data
equal
imply

the

i?rk many ways of

about

numbers.

each of those

-gGstill

of cor,tinuity
stands

into

of

to

dats,

the mixing

for

there

and
the nonregion

from

gG:

-m G = g (y&d
=

p3]

normal

to the experimental

rati

velocity

layer-

approximately

there

of the equations
that,

boundary

and Laufer

since

the

the distance

of thti

yG/x is

arbitrariness

momentum implies

the stream

that

Of course,

Application

dimensional

width

of Liepmann

thl; cosine

y is

the zero-velocity

imply

those

of 2 and < , u,
is
-\T

stream,

th6 total

pq

. . . ..(2.5-1)

0.0787

. . . ..(2.5-2)

or 0.0974

17.
according

to which

Sabin

PO] has carried

more general
with

of the two v&ues

velocity

;G issues

He reports

20 2G

proportional
reported

to

which
into

that

results

a stream

is

zo).

on the

with

velocity
thickness

The profile

can be fitted

taken.

when the stream

the mixing-layer

(I-zo)/(l+

by Sabin

~$5

out measurements

layer

mixihg

for

quite

well

is

shapes
by the

formula:
z = *{(I
In this

case,

the continuity
3+z

- mG =

Hence,

-t- zo) - (1 - zo) cosnc]

mm8

in view

. . . ..(2.$-3)

and momentum equations


-YG

imply:

. . . ..(2.5-4)

of the variation

of yG/x with

zo, we can

write:
-m G =,c

where 2 stands

for

whether

Reichardt's

taken.

Sabin's

second

z()m

either

should

ment rate

or 0.0974
hd

according

Laufer's

incidentally,

be noted

from

lend

to

constant

support

Obviously

zc

an absolute

stream,
from

The relation
(lz&3
-----m-s(1 f

the entrainment

when i.

the non-dimensional

determinable

momentum equations.
mO

that

the lower-velocity

InO, is also

equal

0.0787

or Liepmann
data,

. . . ..(2.5-5)

is

to the

of the two figures.

It

call

+ 37))
-(1 f y-j>

(I-

Equations

(2.5-5)

the continuity

z())

zo>

rates

only

which

and

. . . ..(2.5-6)

are numerically

zOm@qua&jzero, go has

one third

and (2.5-6)

as great.-as

about

obtained

in experiments

in which z.

However,

formulae

for

_M~.

were based on Sabin's

th ti width of the mixing layer,

findings

valid

we shall

is:

equals unity;..when
magnitude

entrsin-

lay

which were

between

the case in which

0 and 1.

~~ is

18.

greats?? than
notation.

unity

cran be obtained

Thus ~0 becomes -mG/zO;

and ~6 must be replaced


formulae:

-rnGbecomes

by l/g,.

There result

-mG=

71:

m. =. c

(z,-1)(1+3a,>
------II(1 +Q
(20 - w3+
----m-e-

y)>
. . . .

\ .

formulaec~op~y

that

numerically

equal

when 20 is/to

unity;

to infinity,

magnitude
is

tempting
layor

With

and (2.5-7)

to identify
with

this

the arithmetic

into

"0 has thr\?e

would

furnish

the two.;situations.

to

(1+go)/2;

it

may lie

and with

C taken

and 0.0974,

as, say,

equations

(2.5-5)

lsw of entrainment

the plane

of maximum shesr
at which

in the boundary

is discussed
agsinin
..
information
about entrainment

z is

in the free
stress

co-

approximately

layer,

to the plane

matter

on the othclr

where 2 equals
section

3.3,

into

boundary

equal
hand,

-%.

This

where empirical
layers

is used

of cntr3inment.law.

2.6

.AJErecintion
-~--~----.~~~-~~of the m?thematict:l
bound:lry-lcxyer
devslopmlznt.
Let us now enumarate
to establish

the boundary

For example,

the plane

the choice

the

however
defer judgment
*- ._
are obvious differences

sinc:d there

nearer

gE for

~0 for

We shall

between

to guide

the numerical

the required

layer,

mzttcr,

layer,
.
with

the quantity

identification

on this

incides

tines

but whan 20

the quantity

mean of 0.0787

a boundary

mixing

go and IJI~ are

of rnG.

mixing

layer.

.(2.5-8)

(1 f (j>

those

free

the

. . . ..(2.5-7).

drice agsin,

It

mO/~0;

. ..

and

tends

by a change of

z. 71:

z.

simply

equations

the conGtions

problem

can be solved.

suppose

that

velocity

of predict-

end unknowns,

under-which

In the first

the mainstrezm

problem

so as

tha mathematical
instnnce
u-G,

th*

we shall
stream

width

19.
E and the injection
the length

rate

co-ordinate

the hydrodynamic
prior

x,.

problem

to the thermal

equations

first

it

problem

is

from

(2.1-14)

(I-

12)Rm

is

values

ensures

separately

of
that

from

and

problem.

constituted

algebraic

equation

at all

condition

can be solved

and several

differential

be derived

The last

or concentration

The hydrodynamic
ential

s are prescribed

by two differ-

equations.

The

The second may

(2.1-12).

by the use of (2.1-12)and

(2.1-6);

is:

Rm .23L

d(lnuG)
-w--wdRx

= -_lf---

- =2

d Rx

I2
w-m

from

N2/dzE

equations
for

(2.2-10)

2.

leads

to regard

to negligible

variation

always

The main dependent


latter

being

connexion,

known

quantities
(2.4-l),

extremely

of

the

is preferable
sides,

the latter
because

are thus

step

the

gE and grn, the

to R2 since

it

is always

appczring

in equations

to $

and Em or to

may be related

following

and (2.2-10)

(2.4-2)

it

equation

slow.

variables

by moans

with

right-hand

in practice,

quantities

nnd(2.6-1)

(2.1-12)

possible

somewhat preferable

The other

positive.

coupled

1. as a constant;.

errors

of 1 is

1 . . . ..(2.6-1)

a-% may be obtained

and (2.4-2),

In the latter

"E

aI,/

to use the second of the three


and convenient

a12

'1

and

(2.4-l)

mG - 12m- 1,s

- '2)

---

bzE
The quantities

(I,

which

equations:-

relate

the &Is

to ZE &, a-rid5;
(2.2-6)
which

which

relates

can conveniently

2 to s,

be written

& and m_; and (2.2-T),


in terms

and m.
-At this

point

decision

concerning

equation

(2.2-7).

expressed

as

it

is

The argument

yG/\y(~

p )-S(I')-)]

gE, 1:

a
to make/provisional

appropriate

the quantity

of I&,

E,' which

appears

of the logarithm
.

The quantity

in
cm be
in

20.

curly

brackets

terms

it

has the dimensions

measures

the length

the "eddy size",


effects

is present,
differs

from that

leaving

at-the

where

choose E' so that

determined?

It

it

would

p(Tp)-3E-l

?? is some suitable

d1

average

value.

lie

coming;
too

we can expect

small

usually

lizs

outsido

this

between

1 = ln,EI
I.
Of course,
logarithm
(2.6-2)

-:

?E
y--

as being

equal

nevertheless,

. . . ..(2.6-2)

by small

variations

until

to

deferred

It

has now been established


to allow

iteration

given

of Em,

so little

in the argument,

ba

equation

function

of 1 is

convergent

of the value

of the

to the logarithm,

the value

be

equations

2E

becomes:

tha argument

1 as an explicit

may be used as a rapidly

will

than

of equations

f 1.5625ml

within

does not yield

The question

rather

the help

(2.2-T)

1 appears

as well

influenced

is forth-

since

and g;

7 equals

whare 2 equals

and with

0.4

and

region.

equation

j(

be

7 and

evidence

the location

in the boundary

further

the viscous

9) and (2.2-IO),

(2.1-

bracket,

at the wall

to be too large

assumption,

be

How can

presume that

until

this

since

a. value,

With

we shall
at least

+ ,m-&s>,

therefore

prevails
for m = 0. Clearly
z 5E_' is equal to (?)$

must certainly

Accordingly,

sub-layer

in the curly

z + Iil"u
- -G' the former being the stress
the latter
the gr eatzst possible
stress
layer.

,and viscous

in the laminar

which

i.e.

Now when mass transfer

wall;

to insert

E, at the value

we should

by shear

stress

in physical

of the turbulence,

sub-layer.

the shear

inappropriate

scale

as influenced

in the laminar

of length;

to the

that

(2.6-2)

formula.
constant

E,

later.

the determination

(Em9 gE3 59 1) at all

points

along

m and 2 are specified

as functions

that

we have sufficient
of the unknowns

the surface,

when EC,

of the longitudinal

31.

We insert
one,

at this

point

of the suitability

Clausar
three

5, defined
latter

considerable

boundary

in equation

being

denoted

for

G were 6.q

10.1

and 19.3;

12.0

respectively.

assumption

(also

a weak

(3.3-2)

family.
attention

has reported

above,

and

reported

as 6.8 in Clauser

as already

values

paper.

of
the

(l-P,)~-T,

in C13usor's

The values
pg

-4 were 3.6,

of (I-I?)s

to

by icl,/6

Now the present

),

6.4 and

velocity-profile

sisen:

$A2+ 3.9'725A +
-----P-P+A + 2.5

albeit

experimental

layers.and

the values

implies,
G

test,

of thti velocity-profile

[4-j devoted
different

another

12.5
. . . ..(4.1-2)

and:
(1 - 1,),-t

Fig.

9 contains

a plot

line

represents

equations

(4.1-2)

Clausor's

data.

full

the circles

reprc3,~c,nt

crosses

near

would

lie

greatly

between

dependent

by the noarntiss

of the shear-stress
straight
4.2

line

no test

rnG substituted

the implicstions
from

[38]

it

as is
for

indicated

the profile

which,

in prtisent

equation

. . . . ..(4.1-4)

at all

since

of the accuracy

the curve

cuts

any

too obliquely.

boundary

Erossure
gradient.
-ep
-Results of much greater
considering

however,

+ (A - zE)<

the origin

The stationary-state

the

as:

pradiction,

through

and

Evidentally

valid

and Rotta

9 provides

Fig.

The

not
to find good agreement,
for
-the ordinate
and abscissa is not

BT]

2 = zE + Din<

5.

and (4.1,3),

Once again

of the bro.lcen curve

cran be expressed

Of course,

-3, versus

on the shape of profila,

of Ross and Robertson


notation

. . . ..@-.I-3)

of (7-&,)s

to the curve.

have been surprising

the relationship

-$A + 2.5

layer

significance

(2.7-l).

g placed

'

an w-w
adverse

are obtained

of equation
(3.3-5),

with

by

With
equal

to

22.
d
--dK X

d(lnw)
m ----dXx
m (a,
--P-L-u----s_

= m t@~-JQ>

- if&)>

COP-1
,,>

being

is the equation

which

the unknown dependent


Finally

we must note

vaporization,

( i.e.

that,

in problems

etc.,

In such cases,

those

has to be integrated,

@.

variable.

condensation,

the data.

. ..(2.6-3

----a

-- E
This

all

involving

m is not
specified
-I

three

differential

in

equations

gm, F+~ and j$.,)


J must be solved simultaneously.
Sometimes two @-equations
must ba dealt with,
for example
in
when the surfaca
conditions
are/d.irec tly specified
[49] ;
in one,

for

@ might

stand

concentration,

enthalpy,

in the other

and a surface-equilibrium

be needed to link
remains

for

well

condition

the two prcperties.

within

for

However,

the scope of quite

modest

would
the problem

computational

facilities.
Now that

it

mathematical
of the
2.7

has been established

structure

general

mathematical

equation.
only

dzE/dRx

and sign

small

call

(c.f.

certain

neglect

side
that

a flow

to be precisely

chemistry

further

discussion

can be dispenszd

of equation

in the

(2.6-l)

two of them dominate


d-%/g,

with.

may
the

may be neglected,

error.

by analogy

&zer,--

a complete

boundary
layer.
-- L--AL-the terms appearing

Then the term involving

We shall

for

problem

of the right-hand

be of such size

with

has been erected,

The
- -------'stationary=state----In some circumstances,

numerator

that

with

for
zero

of chain

d-%/dH_x, even though

equation

(2.6-l)

shows

a stationary-state

I_-- bounda=
phenomena in physics and

similar

Bodenstein's

classes

which

"stationary-state"
reactions
it

may r,ot

[2]

hypothesis
).

When we

equal

zero

23.

precisely,

the consequent

stationary".*
theory

theory

The foundation

is therefore

will

be termed

"quasi-

of the quasi-stationary

the degenerate

form of equation

(2.6-l),

namely:

--dzE
dRx

(1 -

=r 0 :

R,

12>

d(ln uG>
---- (I1 -12)mG -12m-IAs=
d Rx
/
. . . ..(2.7-1)

The use of this


advantage
which
it

of eliminating

govern

permits

the local
without
ential

equation

many local

remainder

properties

0
11

theory,

without

since

surface

the presence

may be characterised

for

example

the flow

any other,
immersed

of a differ-

with
permits

of the full

---- boundary
of the problem

than

Moreover,

contained

this

flat-plate

The nature
-I---------We first
consider

impermeable

solution

be conducted

many implications

3. The
-- turbulent---

more attention

will

layer.

g and g2, to be expressed

Much of the discussion

of the paper

into

the great

of the layer,

to -E
z and without

the quasi-stationary

3.1

of the wall

drag law connecting


reference

of course

one of the two differentialequations

the hydrodynamics

equation.

insight

brings

in the

the aid

of

a swift

equations.

layer--

which has been studied


that

on a smooth plane

in a stream

of injection
mathematically

with

from

of uniform
slots.

velocity,

The situation

by the conditions:

m=O
d(lnuG)/dRx

= 0

d(lnw)/dRx

= 01

Because of the large

number of experimental

. . . ..(3.1-1)

data which

that the
exist for this flow, we can not only confirm
I_-----------w
*Footnote:
The stationary-state
boundary layer is not quite
[4].
boundary layer"
of Clauser
the same as the "equilibrium
l-zE
is independent
of gx; for
For the stationary-state,
is
Clauser's
equilibrium
layer,
it may be shown, (1-3)~~
independent
of zx.

24.

present theory has the right


of the unknown constants

form, but can also fix

some

(g, s) so as to give good agree-

ment with the data.


We shall
justifying

use the quasi-stationary

it

for the flat-plate

-use

Equations.
-.
In the present circumstances,

3.2

equations.reduce
(2.1-12)e
(2.2-6)

subsequently

flow.

the general hydrodynamic

to:

- dR,/dRx = -mG
-

(2.2-10)

. . . ..(3.2-I)

= (o.4+1)2

. . . ..(3.2-2)

D= zE;/l

--+w

(2.4-l)

theory,

. . . ..(3.2-3)

. . . ..(3.2-4)

(2.4-2)--+12=

2 + ZE(& - q"

1.589
_I-

> + zjpg

+ -$T>

..:..(3.2-5)
-m

(2.7-l)-+

= ----II s

. . . ..(3.2-6)

II - I;,

Let us now note that we can reasonably guess that gE


_ is close to unity
theories

implying

in this

for the flat

provisional

entrainment

it

pILate.
law

to be proportional

proportional
likely

to (Ithat

after

to

2,));

(zl-

These considerations,

Let us also note that the

(2.5-5)

implies
(if

(I-zE)

that -EG

unity

make it probable that 2 is proportional


of this

question,

(2.'4-3)

makes

to ('I-ZE);

when zE is near

taken together,with

iS

is itself

(I-gE)

is also proportional

22)

conventional

are fairly

moreover equation

meanwhile, $ is approximately

aid investigation

all,

that zE is equal to unity

successful
likely

case; for,

I.

equation

(3.2-6)

to (l-~~)~.

To

WCdefine

the quantity

A,, by:
. . . ..(3.2-7)
It is interesting

to note that,

if the equations

imply that A, is a constant for an equilibrium

flat-plate

indeed

25.
boundary
first

layer,

the present

success;

for

theory

equation

will

(3.2-7)

have scored

can be re-arranged

UG- UE
7;s
= A
The left-hand
velocity

side

profile

outer

measures

from

by Schultz-Grunow
value
3.3

p3]

of around

the deviation

2.3 for

profile,
and it

this

difference

flat-plate

at the'

was established
has a constant

boundary

layers.

Deductions
data for
H.
--s-1-- from exp erimental
--u
-Substitution
of equation
(3.207),
into equations

and (3.2-5),

together

leads

(2.1-6)

with

the use of (3.2-2),

to the interesting

3.9725A
+ 12.5)
-w(+A+ 2.5)

Now Hama /35] has observed


flat-plate

velocity

coefficient

profiles

H
where G is

taken

with

Clauser

recommended variously
suggested

a value

of the experimental
by the velocity

5 illustrates

curves

drawn for

comparison

I41 consid&red

profile

after

of 4 appearing

transfer

We therefore
and pressure

deduce that,
gradient:

Coles

extensive

be
and

c5) had

examination

6.4 is implied
[4a.

the value

of 6.5 for

and (3.3-2)

in the former

2, we can now deduce the corresponding


2.342.

of g should

The value

(3.3-7)

6.5

6.0,

the same data

a less

we adopt

data collected

c =1 5.5,

Earlier,

and 6.8.

of equations

the function

to the drag

thti

of Schultz-Grunow

paper

of measured

. . . ..(3.3-2)

the value

literature.

In the present
Since

Fig.

of 7.1,

of the form:
- Gs3)

6.1

can be related

Hama recommended that

as 6.1.

and

.,.,.(3.3-l)

the shape factor

l/(1

a constant.

by Hama, together
and 7.0.

that

by an equation

(3.2-3)

--

=--

- $7;
----

(3.2-4)

equation:

1
H

that

of the actual

layer;

that

as:

. . . ..(3.2-8)

the logarithmic

edge of the boundary

its

value

g.

shows
is equal

of A_; it

in the absence

is

of mass

to

26.

This

UG ---

?I3

(z/p

>3

agreement

profile
is

(2.2-l)

which

6 shows.

Of course,

signify

that

the family

of profiles

described

profiles

by equation

reasonably

that

equal

in question;

then

(3.2-51,

- m
--- G

With

0.1

review,
about

it

is

entrainment
with,

and (3.2-7)

imply:

in all

that

fit

of

hypothesis.
('l-g%)

Suppose

in the region
(3.2-f-I-),

. . . ..(3.3-4)

we d&tuce

that

Since

value

quite

equal

" 3 lies

.which

a constant

the data

C1 is

to

between

ars here under


of C',

equaI

ad~~quat~ly.

to

So an

-me.0
to (I- +) conforms
G proportional
and may even bc thought to explain,
the observations
and Hama.

is an appropria-tz

recommendation

for

just

In section

have led

obtained
Possibly

2.5,

at which
law,

0.059,
directly

we should

identify

when zE is

identificntion

a li%tle
from

to make a firmer

valid

to a value of C1 equal
i.e.

0.088x(4/3)+2,

point

the entrainmznt

than unity:

go would

layers.

the measured

law giving

This

value

has been postulated,

(3.2-3),

the experiments

clear

of Schultz-Grunow

less

merely

1
1
(-@
+
2.5)
~2
. ------a
e--m
1 - Gs--5-

g5)/(l-6.5s*i.

would

Oil4

of

author's

the conformity

times

(3.2-21,

and G = 6.5,

3.671

&nd 0.034

facts

C' , say

A = 2.342

0.1163(1-

that

fits

our entrainment

A(+A + 2.5)
=
-

insertion

with

which

equations

= ------

1 - ZE

from

(2.2-l),

to a constant

(3.2-G)

Indead ?

wzll,

of i?, with

-mGis

section.

these

Let us now examine more clo'sely


the constancy

of Schultz-

in good agretiment

as Pig.

that

that

results

data,

i.e.

with

at the end of th& last

velocity

(3.3-3)'into

s-3

. . ..r(3.3-3)

in exctillent

Grunow mentioned
the whole

=- (I - ZE)

= 2.342

.
is

result

less

of z3 with

than

consideration
(I-3,)

to about
half

of the

of boundary
with

approx-

27.
imatcly

one half

region
free

of the boundary
mixing

9 it

zer0

of (I-SO),

layer.

layer

is

like

On the othar

just

hand,

becomes much more reasonable

the same significance


mixing

on the grounds

region

as zo;

and the free

maximum shear

stress

an entrainment
it

the

when z+,, is close to .


to regard it as having .

layer

the boundary-layer

have the plane

of

We can devise

in the middle.

which

the mixing

one half'of

now both

mixing

roughly

formula

requirements;

for

that

approximately

fits

both

these

is:

,.

-mG=

~~'(1:

If

now we require

that

2 has the typical


& to 2.342,

cp

- ZE) (1 t: *z,)

equation

value

we deduce that

Equation

(3.3-5),

used as the entrainment


Of course

the paper.

C,, equal

law for
this

study

of all

ultimately

may be necessary

of 0.1023.
will

require

other

quantities

the % function.

the present

hypothesis

and plausible

worth

ular

testing

values

It

further.

involves

-m G -+

Howover,
on,e, which

the followhg

partic-

of EG:.

2,-d

of

refinement

example grn and 2) into

is

be

data has been made;

to introduce

a simple

when

to 6.5 and

than zE (for

is

(3.3-5)

in the remainder

will

available

G equal

to CilZ3,

z.~CLI,

practice

when a closer
it

with

g1 has the value

with

is satisfied

(3.3-4,)

of 0.0015,

0.1363

('1 - z$J

. . . ..(3e3-6)

Z~ = O :
3.4

Derivation
Combination

leads,

g=

for
0.0015

of equation

law -----for

(3.2-j)

with

g2 introduced

the flat

drag.

the constant
By taking

and g2 = 5030,

pleta.

equstion
via

(2.2-6)

(2.1-8),

We can now fix


data

of a lbcal -s drag

; = 0 and with

for
S

- m(; = 0.1023

to:

. . . ..(3.4-.I)

E, by reference
as typical
extracted

to experimental

the pair
from the

of values
"best-fit"

table

28.

of Spalding
derived

and Chi

above,

corresponds
ary flow
s

the following
on a smooth

CO.4

well

as the curve

Fig.

7 shows.
The value

012

of the fact

that

a valua

near

the wall.

from the fact

that

the velocity

the experimental

some error

is

the thoory,

it

empirically
integrations
3.5

data

and Chi

data

just

[57],

as

examination

proffle

of velocity

is more appropriate
may arise
does not

(2.2-l)

respscts;

but probably'

to the use of the


stage

as

as surpris-

The discrepancy

At a later
will

. . . ..(3.4-2)

of 9.025

in all

attributable

ary hypothesis.

plate:

E can be regarded

to the region

fit

flat

there

quasi-station-

th (3 experimental

for

show that

To this

6.542.

dr ag law for

by Spalding

of 6.542,

of A, and G

(I-~.?s+)}]~

to fit

fitted

low in view
data

local

{4.55H2/

appears

the values

E; equals

impermeable

/ln

relation

-profile

and with

we deduce that

This

ingly

[57],

quasi-station-

in the development

of.

be necessary

to re-adjust

all

the

determintid

constants

by reference

to exact

of both

the differential

equations.

The valid*
of the stationary-state
hypothesis.
e-m----e-m--now that a stationary-state
theory
It is necessary,

has been developed


re-examine

for

the general

has a satisfactory

the flat-plate
equations

boundary

to see if

layer,

to

the hypothesis

foundation.

In the present

circumstances,

equiltion

can

(2.6-l)

be written:
d(12/Il)
Rm --m-v

-mG (II

follows

_ s

. . . ..(3.5-1)

II

dRX

Now it

-I*>,
---

from

the quasi-stationary

hypothesis

I? = 1 - @A + 2.5)~~

that:

. . . ..(3.5-2)

I2 = I -, (A f 5) 33 + (+A+2.5)Gs

43.5-3)

Since

we know that

gt is considerably

less

than

unity

in

29.

the situation

in

question,

we can write:
s i!

- (SA tr 2.5)

2&l

. . . ..(3.5-4)

II

IlR2-

m --

Rm

II-

R2

----

G$A + 2.5)

I2

s3

and so:

= ,_R1_

d(12'14
*In B-m-dRx

of equation

(3.4-2)

differentiation

ds
. ----

-1

---a

further

that

dR,

simply

imply

approximately

that

we can obtain

dR2
--

2.5

G I__

by

equals

re-written

for

the flat

2, equations

the left-hand

(3.5-7)

the momentum equation

dR_p!&

(3.5-7)

influence,

of the logarithm

equation:

dR,

2s3/2

the argument

has little

of this

. . . ..(3.5-6)

dRx

2s

the g -5 term inside

Since

Since

ds

side

plate

(3.5-6)

of (3.5-l)

shows

and
can be

as follows:

d(12/Il
Rm w-m-

> =2.5

s3'2

. . . ..(3.5-8)

on the validity

of the quasi-

dRX

We can now pronounce

stationary

hypothesis;

equation

(3.5-I)

2, while

the left-hand

0.1

times

Thus,

if

is

10% larger

for

conducted
will

It

value
than

that
that

that

2.5s3",
_

i.e.

around

of the equation

had not been

have been chosen about


in section

investigations
paper;

of

the quasi-stationary

the quasi-stationary

the retention

of magnitude

approximation.

obtained

in the present

of

as a first

of C1 might

exploratory

necessitate

is only

but only
side

on the right

of the order

follows

justified,

We conclude
useful

side

the left-hand

neglected,the

the two terms

are obviously

as great.

assumption

for

3.3.

hypothesis

is

such as are being

but more exact


of the dzE/dRx

analysis
term.

30.
4.

The smooth impermeable-wall;nfluence-w-m-gradient.


m--m

4.1

Comparison----- with the


drap law of Ludwicm aIWTillmann.
-~~a...zL.--I-----u
-_I_-Ludwieg and Tillmsnn
p5] measured the drag exerted

by a boundary-layer
ient.

subjected

As a result

following

of their

approximate
0.123

s.. . =

Their
IO3

skin

x IO -0.678H
(

R2

covered

between

in terms

the'value

6.542

with

and 2 is

lines

represbnt

(4.1-I))

their

extent

is

care

only
if

has been taken


crofiles

and even a poor

data,

a fairly

fit

in Fig.

approximctd'.

poor

agreement

to ensure
fits

that

8; the broken

appropritite,

and the

as rather

of the fact
However,

that'the
it

would have

had been obtained,


the postulated

of the velocity-profile
with

formula

theory

the experimental

.good agreement

The

by those'authors.

may be regarded
in view

together

3.4.

the area

explored

the present

particularly

of velocity

give

between

itself

curves

withComput-

equations

E insection

roughlk

and
in terms

by (2.2-6).

these

theory;

connected

for

covering

formula

been surprising

solely

(2.4-l)

the iudwieg-Tillmann

1 conditions

Ludwieg-Tillmann
satisfactory,

(2.1-6),

given

out using

as full

straight

latter

at the hig.her

m =' 0; 1 is

derivid

are plotted

The agreement

13

up

of the present

equations

have been carried

to the experimenta

about-l.2

of -%, 2nd JJ; I, can be expressed

Of z!E and 1. via (2.2-10)


n,
and -2 vi.3 (2.6-2);

results

occurred

assumption

,H may be expressed.via

with

of II2 from about

2,. II2 and g can be derived

from the velocity-profile

ations

a
. . . ..(4.1-1)

of 2 from

mainly

the

numbers.

A relation

(2.4-2)

a-range

grad-

friction:

-0.268

and Q range

X104,

Ii-l
the larger7values

Reynolds

to an 3dvcrse pressure
* studios,
they propounded

law of local

experiments

to about.

to 1.8;

for

of px~ssure
--

data
data

the experimental

for
family

fairly
will

well;
still

drag

31.

We insert
one,

at this

point

of the suitability

Clausar
three

5, defined
latter

considerable

boundary

in equation

being

denoted

for

G were 6.q

10.1

and 19.3;

12.0

respectively.

assumption

(also

a weak

(3.3-2)

family.
attention

has reported

above,

and

reported

as 6.8 in Clauser

as already

values

paper.

of
the

(l-P,)~-T,

in C13usor's

The values
pg

-4 were 3.6,

of (I-I?)s

to

by icl,/6

Now the present

),

6.4 and

velocity-profile

sisen:

$A2+ 3.9'725A +
-----P-P+A + 2.5

albeit

experimental

layers.and

the values

implies,
G

test,

of thti velocity-profile

[4-j devoted
different

another

12.5
. . . ..(4.1-2)

and:
(1 - 1,),-t

Fig.

9 contains

a plot

line

represents

equations

(4.1-2)

Clausor's

data.

full

the circles

reprc3,~c,nt

crosses

near

would

lie

greatly

between

dependent

by the noarntiss

of the shear-stress
straight
4.2

line

no test

rnG substituted

the implicstions
from

[38]

it

as is
for

indicated

the profile

which,

in prtisent

equation

. . . . ..(4.1-4)

at all

since

of the accuracy

the curve

cuts

any

too obliquely.

boundary

Erossure
gradient.
-ep
-Results of much greater
considering

however,

+ (A - zE)<

the origin

The stationary-state

the

as:

pradiction,

through

and

Evidentally

valid

and Rotta

9 provides

Fig.

The

not
to find good agreement,
for
-the ordinate
and abscissa is not

BT]

2 = zE + Din<

5.

and (4.1,3),

Once again

of the bro.lcen curve

cran be expressed

Of course,

-3, versus

on the shape of profila,

of Ross and Robertson


notation

. . . ..@-.I-3)

of (7-&,)s

to the curve.

have been surprising

the relationship

-$A + 2.5

layer

significance

(2.7-l).

g placed

'

an w-w
adverse

are obtained

of equation
(3.3-5),

with

by

With
equal

to

32.

zero because mass transfer


the non-dimensional
F* =

is

pressure

R*

absent,
gradient,

d (lnuGl
-----

namely:

U1

ir

.. . . . (4.2-q)

-I

+ .jZE, _ (II
qu

Equation

values

can be used,

(4.2-2)

mentioned

in the previous

of g2 for

various

of such computations
constant

gradient

partly

among others,
dominant

influence;

separation

now show that

present

theory

also,

appreciably
_
and LeonPeG.
_

emerges is

First

>2

- 121

(4.2-2)

with

those

the computation

in Fig.

of

The results

IO;

lines

this

of

always
value

one of the
vary

layer,

I?2 plays

an important

role

in the

although

the critical

constant--gg

.and

the pressure-gradient
Clauser

when -lZ2 exceeds


1.9.

lower

than

that

with

C4I.l ), will

layer,

such boundary

Reynolds
of Fig.

g will
$/s

therefore

which

IO is strictly

by ensuring

downstream

parameter

Fig.
boundary

lines

of course

value

We

of Kutaceladze

that

of z;

argue,

around

changes with

slightly

authors

oocurs

in the laboratory

gradient

exerts

of g.being

ZE independent

can be contrived

p'il ,

quantity

these

must be emphasised
.
only'the
stationary-state
with

and Leont'ev

that

it

for

the layer

(e.g.

, . . . .

of g and g2.

in particular,

shall

boundary

for

Kutateladze

have suggested

the corresponding

g will

section,

are displayed

0.01,

pressure

in conjunction

values

because

boundary-layer

with

z.~ are also shown.


-Al
has been chosen as the measure of the pressure

I?2

valid

results:
A 0.1023 (1 - z&l

for
- b

- .
I

d"G
---dx

2
e--e

d R*
there

and a new symbol

i.e.
layers

that

the

number in accordance
IO. ; Obviously

distance
eventually

in such a
vanish-;

chosen by some authors


vary

widely.

. .

33.
The main conclusions
Fig.

to be drawn from inspection

of

IO are as follows:
(i)

At any particular

momentum-thickness

number E,, there are in general


which

correspond

dimensional
(ii)

gradient

At low values

gradients)

only

between

one value

not be discussed

can,

in principle

Probably

for

a givennon-

adverse
for

with

in the present

pressure

which

another

layers

at least,

vzdues of g

l?2.

of H exists

zE, but boundary

will

state

of -l?2 (mildly

zero and unity.

negative

two possible

to the stationary

pressure

Reynolds

-% lies

one exists

reverse-flow

for
regions

report,

although

into

the framework

be fitted

they

of the theory.
(iii)

At somewhat higher

of g can satisfy
without

involving

(iv)

no real

finite;

but which varies

such high

quantity

of about

0.006,
is

involving

a lower

value

different

considerations.

Comparison
---Fig.

Fig.

10.

several
with

-In

addition

It

it

experimental

an arrow

fall

It

follows

shows that

So for

-g2 in

prodiction,
and Leont'ev

will

is

number,

and the boundary

layer

of the same
PI],

but

based on quite

be interesting

to make

data.

contains

curves

investigations.

indicating

in the experiments;

which

data.
experimental
F3-K
-A------c
the same curves as are shown on

with

contains

of lZ2

is bound to be

(2.6))

of -F2 and also

experimental

11

dzE/dRx

a striking

of Kutateladze

4.3

value,

exists.

be negative.

as that

with

layer

equation

character

a comparison

value

of -l?2,

-% will

This

separate.

at a fixed

somewhat with.Reynolds

of

must indeed

two values

a given

boundary
values

of -g2,

(-% < 0).

-g2 exceeds

re-examination

excess
will

flow

stationary-state
for

this

(4.2-2)

rcverse

When however

near 0.006

that,

equation

values

points

the direction

deduced

from

Each curve

is marked

in which

lZx increased

at which I?2 equalled

5x'103

and IO4 are indicated

by circles

remembered

the possible

that,

experiments

with

of Clauser

layers

were not

indeed

the variation

surface

[4],

we do not expect

The lower

within

position

for

higher

curve

data

Possibly

the pressure

short.

is

layer

longer;
curves,

the l?2~values,

layer

The data
obtained

for

an ac-:,,-ofoil

an incidence
data

curves

of '10').
runs

fairly

in the upstream

exceeded
increases
theory

0.004,

which

close
region;

and -l?2 falls.

interof

of H.

have been deduced


velocity
appears

variation,

that

the

to conform

state,

and Tetervin

The curve

the

state

value

DO} were

(FACA 65(216)-222

the curve

the value

departure

high

In any case it

of vcn Doenhoff

this

the upstream

the stationary

well

the predicted

although

of the main-stream

with

lies

The second and

changes so as eventually

closely

two

although

in exactly

has a surprisingly

a differentiation

fairly

lie

layer.

considerably

It

curves;

a stationary-state

however

boundary

on Fig.

(approx.)

at

11 representing

to the stationary-state
however,

suddenly
According

when -E2 has just

bends

back

so that

to the quasi-stationary

of zE would be about

0.52

where the

occurs.

The data
foil,

near the

[4] provide

11 is

IO4 does not

are somewhat in error.

these

the

Therefore

to lie

in which

of Clauser

the stationary-state

the boundary

14

cases.

curves

one on Fig.

where I32 is

sects

along

breakaway

of the five

in regions

state;

profiles

the band of stationary-state

point

boundary.

boundary-layer

the experimental

must be

changes slowly.

curves.

of the

velocity

in three

The experimental

from

that

ones except

gradient

exception

the experimental

in their

occurred

theoretical

It

in or near the quasi-stationary

was so extreme

eventually

and squares.

and those

of Newman [29]
of Schubauer

, also

obtained

and Klebanoff

for
[42],

an aerowhich

H .

35.

relate

to a specially

similar

constructed

behaviour.

conforms

In both

fairly

closely

and when -x2 reaches


rise

(i)
that

II

the experimental

and its

layers

gradients

the experiments
as great

separation;

for

will

with

and Leont'ev

(for

Fig.

to cause boundary-layer

boundary-layer

4.2

phenomenon.

provides

support

separation.

of the lower

add plausibility

boundary-layer

separation

avoided,

it

would probably
theory

value

neglected

of the velocity

strength

of -l?2 also

of the observations

is less than,

separation
for

is to be,
the lowness

needs to be established.

seems plausible.

of the pressure
profile

close

systems,

to conclude

may be used wh*n -I$

explanation

the influence

of the experiment-

is 2 phenomenon to be

However the reason

thereafter.

governs

may be judged

of engineering

be sufficient

and that boundary-layer

The following

it

which

to the prese_rlt theory.

in which

the present

the view

quantity

branches

of the design

of the critical

are

of Kutateladze

for

Moreover,

For purposes

expected

of

Thus both

and the theory

the dimensionless

the positions

say, 0.0035,

of the curves

-ETL = 0.01 at sepa*ration)


overgradient
that can be sustained.

II

is indeed

al curves

of withstanding

-E.,
-4- is 2)s grest as
that values only

suggest

suffice

implies

which

the pressure

However,

which

the latter

of section

estimate

seems

Newman and Schubauer/Klebanoff

associated

(ii)

implications

are caprble

for

cited

the argument

form

curves

hypothesis

the upper branches

Doenhoff/Tetcrvin,

that

curves;

conclusions:-

boundary

pressure

' two-thirds

15

0.0037,

of Fig.

the following

turbulent

0,006,

to the stationary-state

Whereas the sthtionary-state

adverse

that

region

and bend over.

to justify

that

show very

cases the upstream

about

Consideration

all

surface,

gradient

to the wall,

of Ludtiieg

We have
on the
on the

and Tillmann

1251

36.

(see section

2.2).

However,

cal work of Stratford


pressure

and theoreti-

[39) has shown that;at

gradients,

this

ular,

when the pressure

shear

stress

profile,i.n

the experimental

high

adverse

neglect

is unjustified;

in partic-

gradient

is sufficiently

high,

at the w&L

falls

the immediate

the

to zero and ths velocity

vicinity

of the wall

obeys the

law:
u

where g is

a mixing-length

Tt follows
gradient

. . . ..(4.3-*I)

$,

that,

for

Now if

the form postulated


the Couette-flow

stress,

g iven
z2E

in section
differential

gr;ldionts.

performance

only

for

The actual

for

only

profile

for

expect

that

can reprdscnt

val.ues

of -g2 which

be

from

exists

10

of -B2 o is

could

no solution

equation

value

. . . ..(4.3-2)

- $1

crl

2.2;

the pressure-

by:

Wa must therefore

prulamented in Fig.

-E2,0*
(iii)

F
-2,o

(K/2)2

wall

-F_* were to exceed -g2 o this


5
of a doparturci
of the velocity

as a result

curves

zero

has the value


-F2,0

pressure

constant,

of
such high
the

stationary-state
are

less

obviously

than

around

0.004,
Fig.

according
11

these

and the value


The value

0.55.
but,

to the experimental

in this
values

of gX at which

of (:I&- 12) varies

range,

it

as equal

the present
However,

paper),

Townsend

(4.3-2)

occurs

so high

only

just

of

g = O.'j75.

that

,K is

throughout

I;z should

the value
this

Since,

may seem surprising.

zero-wall-stress

outside

E2,

circumstances

a value

& =: 0.5 2 0.05;

with

Substitution

yields:

@3] h as argued
in

on

is around

of course

0.16.

boundary-layer

value

suggests:

deduced lies

around

it

collected

to 0.4 (and has been so taken

larger-than-usual
indeed

is

in equation

in more conventional
taken

data

range,

have a

layers,
which

and

we have

3'7.

Fig. 12 provides

further

theory needs toabe modified

evidence that the present


so as to take account of the

influence

of pressure grsdient on the u'yy'


relationship;
reprasents a plot of 2 2 versus. 4 , is bssed on experi-

it

mental results

for zzro wall stress

[59] 9 and is extracted

obtained by Stratford

from the paper by Townsend [633.

The curve represents equation (2.2-l),


with however 2'
-4 1 in accordance with equation (4.3-l),
and
+4ual to -$g/--yE
ZE equal to 0.663,
pressnt

argument is fairly

In lz'ter
modify

tha conception underlying


.
realistic.

developments of the unified

boundary layars
to

Evidently

and ~~11 jets,

it will

the I&E+ ' relation

of the effects

present Fig. 13, which contains


of Fig.

10

-E2 /{z$

with K = 0.575,

Meanwhile

the constsnt

drawn on it.

ws

merely

of constant

Equation

Tar

The foregoing

why Kutatelzdze

discussion

(4.302),

a unity

boundary layer

of

for their

it

(among

In other words the

authors contains

law component, not the ttmixing-layer't


(v) Finally,

too high a

theory implies

value of gE*

these

less than

may bc held to explain

and LeontTev [21) predicted

value of -E2;

other things)

account

-R2 curves

-g2/ .@$ (&, - L2)]


which is marked on Fig. 'l3.

0.0827, a limit

critical

be desirable,

impli es that the curves of Fig. IO can

bk regarded as valid
(iv)

clearly

once more, but also has lines


(I,, - 22)]

theory of

so as to take full

of pressure gradient.

the

is interesting

only the wall-

or "wake" component.
to comparz the degree

of success achieved by the present theory in predicting


i
experimental behaviour with that of ether theories.
A
rough comparison can be made by inspection
which contains. the curves of Fig,
set of curves extracted
Rotta [77];

the latter

IO

of Fig. 13a,

yet again, and also a

from the valuable

rsview paper by

are based. on tht? theories of the


authors whose names appear on the-diagram, and hold for

3'0.
equilibrium

boundary

interesting

to note

to the

e-xperimental

curiously

enough,

the earliest
4.4

layers

represented

l?ig.

with-Head's

entrainment

in section
into

1.2,

law.

is defined

The first

HI =

for

Also

family

in'

(yG - b1)b2

-m+

-i2)

versus

. . . ..(4.4-1)
&,O

The circles

represent

represent

data

drawn on Figs.

14 and 15 are curves

of the present
14 represent

of velocity

here

by:

[42].

Those on Fig.

his

Ii, where I&,

and Klcbanoff

the prediction

and

the empirical

reproduced

from Newman pqj ; the crosses

Schubauer

by Schubauer

El- verse

notation

= 11/(11
The second plots

by Head

Head presented

plots

in the present

of entrainment

theory

reported

in the form of two diagrams,


14 and 15.

law.

boundary-layer

of 6.n entrainment

is

pJ3].

the idea

deduction

12;

prcdiction

of Buri

&;13 , and by Newman p7],

data

.on

unrealistic

Hlebanoff

Figs.

is

data

fi83 9 who used the measurements

results

It

much relation

namely that

has been introduced

to '104.

few of them bear

the least

As mentioned

I?2 equal

that

of all,

Comparison

with

solely

profiles;

represent

the implications

function.

The following

theory,

from

representing

R-2 being

the parameter.

the i.mplications
on Fig.

those

of the

15 in addition

of the assumed ontrainment


conclusions

appear

to be

justified:(i)
mainly

The scatter

due to the difficulty

of velocity
the outer
curves

of the points

profiles,

which

14 show that

not to be expected
significant

of deciding,
location

edge of the boundary,

on Fig.

to lie

Reynolds-number

on Pig.

'I4 is probably
from inspection

shall

However,

be adopted
the

the experimental
on a single
influence.

curve;

for

"theoretical"
points

are

there

is a

Then these

two

39.
facts

are taken

provides

into

no reason

assurucd family
matter

under

(ii)

here

closer

It

present

entirely
should

that

layer,

a band of points,
curve.

into

account,

the presumed
at which mass
or that

the predicted

since

input

difficulty

As already

mentioned,
which

than

I$ on these
should
is

exist

Mickley
experimental
plate

there

this.

theory

of boundary

to dcvclop

that

H, and I&,, is more

Since

the influence

in the

present

a calculation

than that

in the absence

quasi-stationary
Prediction

-m,,

[61].

even more successful

is regarded

on the postulate

is recognised

be possible

and presumed

in doing

between

functions

work to procure

the latter

Read's

the

on the

to the theory,

rests

any other

Mass transfer

of future

explana-

again

gradient

the measured

be no serious

relations

the latter

the cause being

However,,

development,

is that

of pressure

between

laws.

successful

flat

the only

of 3, applies

a single

the rate

view

as an empirical

(iii)

5.1

cithcr

must be the aia

agreement

entrainment

5,

of the

being

are taken

the boundary

of the influence

law.

whiah

than

facts

the more probable,

neglect

it

14

of g1 are too ~~11.

is

unique

rather

law over-estimates

The author's

layer

this

too one must expect

suggests

can be dravm into

wall

Fig.

suitability

in the evaluation

even when these

entrainment

tion

the

that

test.

14 definitBly

values

can be said

profiles,

the parameter,

However,

it

doubting

of velocity

15 also;

being

Fig.

for

The uncertainty

to Fig.
$

account,

of
theory,

procedure

of Head.

of pressure

gradient;

theory.
of the local

and Davis
study
through

drag law.

[27] have made an extensive

of the boundary
which

air

layer

is injected

on a smooth
towards

the

40.
main air

stream.

Their

check of the present


The relevant

measurements

equations

(3.3-5);

and the differential

However,

encouraged

here

are:-

the drag law (2.2-6)


the definition
the

by our success

of mass transfer

the two differential

algebraic

equation,

with

z,$(l+~zE)(l,,

0.1023(1-

and

the flat

plate

3))

and so

by a single

which

-12)

(2.6-l).

we shall

assumption,

(2.7-l),

law

(2.1-12)

(section

equations

namely

of the

entrainment

equations

make use of the stationary-state

replace

a useful

theory.

with \ 1- given by equation


(2.6-2);
z's, with g obtained from (2,2-IO);

in the.abscnce

afford

here reduces

- 12m - I?s

to:

= G

.00..(5&1)
The results
displayed
R-2 for

of computations

in Fig.
various

ment between

using

values

of m_. It

prediction

and experiment
systematic

sufficient

to justify

a modification
(2.6-2)

The agrcemcnt
is not

gratifying,
underlying
that

Mickley

[39]

the two empirical


The theory

throughout;
recently,

and neglected

versus

the outer

various

it

has to be admitted

satisfactorily

with

words,

Rubesin

17 contains

g2 for

for

the theory

the data

were appropriately
be characterised

like

thought

that

as differing

gE equals

unity
of authors

of the wall

layer

or. lrwaketl region.


a plot

of the shape factor

m,; the points

represent

when

chosen.

the majority
only

though

of the assumptions

showed that

might

is not

and expcrimcnt,

vindication

one in implying

in other

exists

themselves

constants

of Rubesin

from the present

Pig.

agreed

satisfactory;

example.

theory;

and Davis

the agree-

to the argument

theory

a complete

the present

of Rubesin

until

betwocn

for

that

is very

error

are

of 2 versus

is evident

what little

to equation

equations

in the form of a plot

16,

certainly,

leading

these

the

H,

'

41.
experimental

data

correspond
theory

to the present

and experiment

However,

this

theory.

is less

may imply

satisfactory

no more than

layers

state

as might

have been expected;

theory

finite

adjusted

of data

to do so (section
any further

Values

to the quasi-stationary

that

they

ing

that

to note

previous

ones.

reconcile
deducted
unique
This

deductions

from the Mickley-

for

with

equations,

pressure

for

expressed

in terms

(3+ &3*

This

definitions

of &,, and $

with

those

experiments;

made in the present

I$ to enter;

It

to the
could

which

not

he

we see that

are not to be expected.


the choice
paper

is

between
form,

each of these

it

may be recognised
and equation

of entraincorrect.

II, HI and -mG


is

inconvenient

quantities

of at most two quantities,

fact

for

is interest-

why Head pa]

H-H
- -1 or -m-G -H -1 relations
is not to say, however, that

to allow

curves

are not identical

data

in the most compact

platewith

14 and 14, in order

gradient.

may explain

the relations

according

the calculated

the new curves

if

the flat

on Figs.

from impermeable-wall

are desired

differential

hypothesis.

theory

This

Of course,

fits

been

has

g and of -rnC versus.&,,

the Mickley/Davis

ment function

g = 0 as
curve

case because it

can be compared with


plates

for

3).

are plotted

impermeable

the disagreement

law.

of H,, versus

mass transfer,

case.

to the stationary

as great

data must be based on the full

The entrainment
----------

between

the Nickley-'

the theoretical

and not on the stationary-state


5.2

that

for

is

in this

the curves

in this

as close

and experiment

Clearly,
Davis

are not

m, and we know that

the majority

while

The agreement

boundary

for

15

and Davis,

Davis

between

of Mickley

e.g.

can be
gE and

by examining
(2.2-10)

for

the
D,.

42'.

5.3

An
------analytical

theory

for
---- the effect

of mass transfer
----m

-on drag.
The effect

of mass transfer

in a particularly
Leont'ev

convenient

[Zl] ; these

on drag has been expressed

formula

authors

by Kutateladze

and

deduce:
- * 2L

. . . ..(5.34)

%
Here 50 is

a function

of s appropriate
for

from

in the absence

gradient.

We shall

the present

set

for

layer

with

(2.2-6)

a fixed

is

the value

Reynolds

derive

number
and

a comparable

formula

of equations.

value

m = 0:

of 2 and 2E which

of &, for

" and ;F2 equal

with

it

of mass transfer

be the values

Let g* and 2;
valid,

specifically

to the momentum-thickness

a smooth wall

pressure

of F$;

are

the smooth-wall

to zero.

Then,

from

boundary
..

equation

s* =
. ..*. .(5.3-S)

Also

from equation

(2.2-6),

4
( )
-- S

.- zE

S*

We now show that


significance
with

with
Am

ZEy

rn# 0, WC can deduce:


ZE*

4-

. (

g* has practically

as go by demonstrating

m at fixed

R,2.

substitutions,

. . . . .

We write
,I

as:

(5..3-3)

the same .

that

equation

1 varies
(2.6-2),

little
by simple

.-

l= In
. . . ..(5.3-4)

l!low we can expect,


of sections

3.2,

boundary

layer

gradient

will

after

re-capitulating

3.3 and 3.5,


with

m&s transfer

aporoximately

II-

that

I2

the arguments

a stationary-state
but no pressure

obey the relation:


3.671

(s + mzE) 3

. . . ..(5.3-5)

43.

It
I

follows

little

that

with

Exact

the argument

m and therefore

computations.bear

equate

of the logarithm
1 itself

this

varies

out.

varies
still

Therefore

less.

we may

~0 to s* approximately;

and z * may be replaced


-E
the value of gE which prevails,

by zE 0 which signifies
9
at the given R,2, in the absence
the counterpart

of mass transfer.

of the Kutateladze/Leont'ev

Thus.

formula

is:

(5.3-l)

. . . ..(5.3-6)

A study

of equations

the following

conclusions

to be drawn:-

two equations

are identical

(i) The
and%,o are

unity.

Reynolds

number.

moderate

R,2ls;

all

This

occurs

Equation

may influence
terms

drag

on the right-hand

an influence
also,

that

which

flows

earlier

authors.

as the specific
that

2 will

does.

implies,

computed

which

It

for

on Fig.

16

is

and Leont'ev
of

that

mass transfer

corresponding

to the two

The second term expresses


itself

this

data.

in equation

relation;

(5.3-l)

as in respect
is

the aspect

has receivedtmost

The first

contribution

cause a reduction
assumption

manifests

effects,

boundary-layer

implies

side.

of the us&y+

pressure-gradient

from

in two ways,

to unity

the predictions

implies

(5.3-6)

zE

of infinite

close

0.8 and 0.95.


.
that Kutateladze

[211J find good agreement between


equation
(5.3-l)
and experimental
(ii)

when both

between

not surprising

permits

at the limit

However gF
-J is fairly
for example, the' points

have gE-values

therefore

and (5.3-6)

(5.3-l)

term might

of the prosent

be decreased

if

in gE, as indeed
through equation
,,

of

of
attention
be regarded
theory;

mass transfer

it
should

the stationary-state
(2.7-l),

that

it

44.

Fig.
It

18 emphasises

contains
2 placed

zero

in evaluation

expresses

equal

The

a finite

value

on the curve

the neglect
physical

of the

(iii)

LxJ),

t~all

ultimately

component
provide

on drag

theories

w&h

low,

effect

equal

mixing

at iew;

study

relation

for

The latter,
s = 0:

value

if

of z/20,

is found
it

in

turned

the low density

out

of the

entrainment.

question

lies

How-

beyond the

made in
prompts

(ii)

above,

the reflection

from thti

m ~4s

of mass

high Ncich numbers than

inhibited

equation

existing

alond predict

the reverse

of this

pcper.

The observation,

is different

layer

that

Specifically,

at a given

much lower

to zero when m = 0.0341


condition

of

may

the fact

would be explained

scope of the present

stress.

value,

as would be the case if

the detailed

(iv)

layer

the influence

tfie u+ my'

has a smaller

high-Mach-number
ever,

for

predict

consider

This

(bec3usa

of the changing

at high Plach number.

-that zX,O were very


for

of the role

Pisch number than

practice.

is disregarded.

2 and D are truly

an explanation

transfer

at high

wall

of zero -% has

of the boundary

do not correctly

s/%

stationary-

the

zero.

theories

that

and.

attainable

both

curve

hypothesis,

the point

since

to

zFu becomes zero when


Although not all

arc physically

The recognition

mixing-layer

that

(0.0341).

si,gnificance,

to zero when ~~ is

is

This

&A and $.

of the ,entrainmcnt

to note

(5.1-l)

been put equal

holdlcver the law of~'the

point

fe attains

ID, has also

and momentum equations,

important

interaction.

g based on equation

of the quantities

requirement;

points

to zero;

the influence

the continuity
state

of zE versus

a plot

with

the last-mentioned

condition
(5.3-6)
0

that

z falls
-E
this

of zero wall

implies,

zE/zE2 90

that

occurs

when:

. . . . . (5.3-7)

45.

Since

-%/&O

is of the order ofunity,


and a typical
9
of ~0 is 0.0015,
the value of m for zero shear

value
stress

is

than

of the order

connexion

it

is

experiments

of Hacker

rates

caused complete

which

boundary

layer

from

of ,m appropriate

considerably

The value

admittedly

rather

layers

entrainment

He found

lies

that

Values

by invoking

the fact

the values

between

0.02

range,

which

in this

large.

canbe

of the turbulent

phenomenon lay

0.0341

in excess
that

of 0.0341

Hacker's

not in the stationary


partly

law gives

explained

2 rather

former's

value

state.

value

zero -E
2 would be one-third
still

does not reach

the lower

but

goes some way towards

6.

The wall

6.1

Velocity

profiles.

We here

consider

injected

immersed
This

is

Glauert

jet

in a large
the "wall-jet"
pfl

and Gee D],

Jawar and Golesworthy


supposed
gradient.

our

2.5);

if

the

of g for
0.0266.

of Hacker's

This
range,

surroundings..
---

,
the situation
a slot

along

reservoir
situation

Schauer
[60]

in which
a wall,

of fluid

and experimentally
Myers,

that

it.

in stagnant

through

Values

of lieichdrdt

i.e.

limit

can

of -EG at

the value

of 0.0787,

is

boundary

by observing

higher

of xG/x wert7 taken,

the

the blowing

by the experiments
2E = 0 than is justified
c34] and Liepmann and Lzufer
p3] (section

is

less

to recall

separation

the wall.

were certainly

below 0.0341

interesting
who measured

@4],

to this

and 0.04.

be explained
17

i.e.

0.0341.

In this

of 0.006,

this
which

studied

and others.

impermeable, and there

is

being
is

at rest.

theoretically

by Sigalla
nnd Eustis

a fluid

p8],

[48],

of course

Bradshaw

Stratford,

The wall

by

is

no pressure

46.

The equations
are the general

which

ones,

are relevant

with

however

to this
-s tending

situation
to infinity.

Thus we deduce:
Prom equations
-I-z

(2.2-9)
=

zE

From equation

and (2.2-40):

1 + cos (xc)

lnzf,

t $-

. . . ..(6.1-1)

(2.24):
. . . ..(6.1-2)

From equations

(2.2-IO),

and (2.4-2):

(2.4-l)

. . . ..(6.1-3)

and

-?-=F
From equations

--I

(2.2-$0)

(ra,-$9,)

I.529
_ ------1

. . . . .(6.1-4)

t 7l2

and (2.4-6):

-0*2oSSn)]

$(T

n
ZTi:

- DPj (OJq4-5In these

equations,

hand side

in order

Equation

has boon transferred

-that all
implies

(6.1-I)

the terms
that

zrnax' where < equals


being related
to 1 by:
7c<rnax

to the left-

should

2 passes

maximum value,
quantities

. . . ..(6el+)

2/l)

sin(aEmax)

cmax,

be finite.
through

these

= 2/l

. . . ..(6.1-6)

and
z max
-__I-

I f cos( 7r<mau)'7 +-2_

91

FE

lncn;ax L
. . . ..(6.1-7)

Since

cmax is

of

max is

x5

follows

always

much smaller

than

equal

to its

approxima-tely

from equation

(6.1-6)

that:

unity,

the sine

argument.

It

I
2
3
E max z--7L ( 1 )

An even closer approximation,


further

. . . ..(6.1-8)

obtained by taking

term in the power-series

function,

expansion of the sine

is:

c maxG-k
Fig.

(+-)

{,- -$ (+)+]-

presents a plot

19

according to equation
of 9.94

( rmax =

are experimental
Gee

zmax / -$= 0.7544);

the ordinate,

Also shown on Fig.

19

measurements made by Bradshaw and

and originally

[3)

profile

with & having the value

(6.1-l),

0.145,

. . . . . (6.1-g)

of the velocity

and abscissa are z/zmax and < .

078

one

reported

in terms of g/zrnax versus

where 6

5&p

3; in plotting

is the value of 5 at which ~~~~~~ equals


3
these data E;s has been taken as 0.54,

which corresponds to 1 = 9.94.

It will

be observed that

the agreement is good, but not perfect.


Fig. 20 represents

in the llwall-law*'

represented
versus

the same velocity-profile

g( T p )+/p.

interesting

Similar

co-ordinate

data,
ii

system: u/(r/p)

remarks can be made. It is

to note that the deviations

from the law:

g/c z/p >3 = 2.5 l+(z


p>"/p] J tcnnst are very great.
6.2 The local drag-law.
-It was mentioned already in section 1.2 that the
theory of Glauert

which rested on the supposition

fJ3],

that the usual wall law prevailed


the wall and the velocity
drag correctly.

in the region between

maximum, fails

to predict

the

Examination of Fig. 20 shows why.

Let

us now see whether the present theory is any better.


Fig.

21

shows a plot

of

versus R
-max'
by means of the

~/(pg~~,x)

i.e. (Pgmax XG <m,,ip) 9 calculated


Also shown are curves representing
present equations.
the theory of Glauert

fl3]

and the experiments

of

4%.
Sigalla

@8], together

experiments

of Bradshaw

ment between

rl
b19

with points
and Gee [3].

experimental

data
,

extremely satisfactory,

the location

of-the

%6 may conclude

possible

to find

represent

the present

satisfactorily.

are abqut

precise

Variations
----

6.3

are all
guided

[28-J report
than

constant.

those

flow

g9 d(lnw)/dgx

to b;t placed

equal

to zero.

(2.5:7),

that

evidently,

circumstances.
of thg

3 govern

i.n the z-direction

and (2.6-1);

drag law

of Sigalla;

deduction--

_.

to

measurements of drag

equation s which

by equation

local

be mentioned

--- in the x-direction:


--------

of the wall-jet

is

19 shows,

the cosine

are not easy in wall-jet

The differential

(2.1-12)

however

15% higher

entrainment
---------Me

. -

theory

of the velocity

predicts.the

should

measurements

than

component

Myers, Schauzr and Eustis


which

function

theory

It

and the present

although It would probably be

th e mixing4ayer

profile,

the agree-

maximum is not predicted

that,

a better

the

Evidently

even though, as Fig.


velocity

very accurately.
..

representing

that&the

the growth

are equations

and d(lnu,)/dR_,
-u
We shall presume,
I
entrainment
law is

given by:

L1

gE:-fCV

-m G=

The differential
dRm
----.-

zE dH,

'E

. . . ..(6.3-1)

:~

equations then become:


_=

. . . ..(6.3-2)

"2

and

. . . ..(6.3-3)
1 and i/-G

vary

slightly

the second term in equation

considerably

smaller

with
(6.3-3)

than the first,

Rx.

However,

will

prove

since

to be

we here treat

these

49.
quantities

as constants

~,,,=1.085x104,
R

equation

having

namely &= 9.94,

RmdzE

appropriate

g/-25 = 1.8 %10-3.

to
Then

- c2 - 0.00305

-.
Z-Z

To solve

values

becomes:

(6.3-3)

eliminate

the

- C2(1+E.),

equations

dRx.

then
-(1&E)
= Rm

where .a is an integration
(6.3-5)
into (6.3~2).now

. . . ..(6.3-4)

and (6.3,4),

(6.3-2)

Integration
zE/a

say

we first

yields:
. . . ..(6.3-5)

constant.

Substitution

of

yields:
l/(2+(9

Rm =
Pinally,

c (2 + E)C2aRx

substitution

in
a

53

yields:

(6.3-5)
{(2+

. ..(6.3-6)

E)

C*aq-(1+w(2+~)

. . . ..(6.3-7)

It

is interesting

The above equations,

jet.

Em and the continued


lead

together

of spread

with

of the

the definition

use of the assumption

of

1 = 9.94,

to:
= 2.502(2+~)~~

yG/x

As we shall
order

of 0.1.

neglect

it

shortly
It

see,

. . . ..(6.3-8)

the quantity

is therefore

the influence

of wall

The above equations

then
5
Rm ';= (2C2 oRx)

zE/a =

(2C2aXx)

Y(/X =

5c,

Ecis

convenient

In physic&l

altogether.

to neglecting
flux.

to know the rate

temporarily

terms,
shezr

reduce

of the

this

to

amounts

on thz momentum

to:
. . . . . (6.3-9)

-&

. . . ..(6.3-10)

i
These equations
preliminary

..,..(6.3-11)

are probably

evaluation

sufficiently

of C2 from

precise

experimental

for

data.

the

50.
Most experimenters
terms

of 13/z

distance

have reported

from

of the fluid

is the width

of the slot.

to 0.54xG,

similarly,

this

emerging

in

being

smEX mny be taken


u4

necessary

to make still

the shear

stress

and yc into

at nny section

and xc

yq as approximately
--H
precise
for L=9.94;

3s 0.7544gE.

the relations

In order

however,

it

more use of the assumption

at the wall

is neglected,

from the slot,

We may t&e

result

introduce

stress

results

and umax/gc I versus x/xc, where y1 is the


-2
the wall at which 2 equals %~~ax, L+ is

the velocity

equal

their

is

small.

we can equate

to the momentum flux

If

this

to
is
that

shear

the momentum flux


at the jet,

SO

obtaining:
2
UG

= F

Rm 2
---em

uc
------

1 = 9.94

i....(6.3-12)

I-

II

With

Yc

agrlin,

and so I,1 = 0.4~

and z2= 0.2361&,

we deduce:
a
-UC'UG

p"C 'C
u-----s
P

= 1.65

. . . ..(6.3-13)

needs to bc retained,
u,
even though it tends to
--iT
because, like z+, 2 tends
in the case in quastion,

wherein
zero

to infinity,

Substitution

-1'3)

now yields:

(6.3-10)

--s--m Rm
P UC Yc &
and,

of (6.3

with

into

(6.3-g)

and

3
g/i ,837

u-max = 0.7544%

.,...(6.3-14)

-3
. . . ..(6.3-15)

Equations
for
data.

(6,3-'il)

the approximata
The former

and (6.3-15)
determination
c2.n be re-written

provide

convenient

of CY2from

avenues

experimental

as:
. . . ..(6.3-16')

51
while

the latter

becomes:

c2=z0.4825{
The experimental
Gee [3],

Nyers,

Schauer

columns

I.

I.

y-&/x

Bradshawetal

Myers eta1
Stratfordetal
It

loss

0.03.

0.0296

3.45

0.0405

0.064

0.0237

3.6

0.0372

that

the C2 values

that

the wall

chosen.

and Golesworthy

may

entrainment;

ment velocity"

is

3bout

implies

3n entrainment

(2.5-7)

for

the free

due to

and the rate


therefore

0.04

report

times

& = 9.94)
constant

mean,

a final

Stratford,

that

Jawar

measurements,
the "entrain-

the peak velocity

~m3x/zE is
s2 of 0.03.

layer,

regard

but shall

before

to make direct

they

mixing

arithmetic

is that

[GO] attempted

(for

in ~&3x is

be considered

The first

with

z.

may

is not

column as more reliable,

of the ratesof

Since

friction

We shall

somewhat above their

of G2 is

This

column.

as to entrainment.

over-estimated.

'

deduced in the

in th;;! first

so the raduction

facts

the jet.

or 0.0615

0.08

Two further
value

c2

0.0615

in the first

namely

3
Umax x
uc Cdc
3.45 or 2.8 0.0405
2.8

is

a value

data

0.0259

of momentum as well

adopt

two

0.07

negligible;

the values

by the first

0.0241

by the fact

of the latter

scatter.

0.065

second column exceed those

entirely

3nd Strstford,

considerable

summarised

is noticeable

be explained

Bradshclw and

s2 ------mm
deduced from ezrimental
------mm

Author
Sigalla

[48],
[28j,

[601 exhibit

be roughly

Table
-w-v

of Sigaila

and Eustis

They may however


of Table

cy;f} -2 . . . . .(6.3-lj)

%;x

data

Jawar and Golesworthy

.-

about

in

$, this

Equation
tending

to

52,
infinity

and s having

0.0767
z.

and 0.0974,

can reasonably

0.03

for

C2 is

Bafors
that

both

further

than it

this

with

therefore

surfzcz

having

probable

will

analysis

is plane.

that

the effect

of curvature)
however,

6.4

this

we will

consider
wall
equals

is

for

film

adiabatic.
zero

an EG-function

(see

equation

these

rasults

(2.3-13));

arguments.

the following
. I
&ided.by
the

of section

2,5:-

. . . ..(6.3-18)
.

been -tGstod in the vicinity

cooling.

juncture

for

(2,3-14)),
together

of thz fore-

implies

and that
with

we

enthalpy,

condition

of

to make a

In particulsr,

g'stands

The latter

(see equation

unity,

.Ultimately

of the implications

the case in which

fact.

be -present,

than

--

for

this

will

baing

The
ndiabntic
~~~11 tcmzcraturz.
-------I_
I_--It is convenient
at th2 prtisent

equations

is

take

and the discussion


--

examination

is

Undoubtedly

as one of its

function,

has not yet

rate

flows

------------

preliminary
going

Jewar and

to work with

I
Of course

of

to note

the entrainment

is rtisponsible

-zE>l:

20

important

when -F
z J is less
boundary-lzyc;r
flows.

the entrainment

foregoing

choice

which the jet

be necessary

yG G (radius

for

is

sign,

In th;: meantime
form

it

over

field

reversed

it

Ed, thz

and Gee r3.3 and Stratford,

in conventional

i.e.

topic,

is when the wall

seems highly

albeit

with

since

confirmed.

the centrifugsl-force
.It

0.02932~;

-_mC

[60-i hava shown that

when the

convex

imply:

be identified

Bradshaw

Golesworthy
greater

woyld

leaving

mean of the values

the arithmetic

and the
that

I$

%.=h,+,

equation

(6.1-5),

imply:

1 zE:
hS - hG =- -s---u---------- d
1 - n
7-z
c! '8---i- I (1 - 0.2055~)

. . . . ..(6.4-?)

Now equation

(2.6-3)

a
m-m-

---I@
(

dHx

On integration

r?duccs
Rm

simply

to:

. . . ..(6.4-2)

II

we have:
I- I'
II

R = const
m
= (hC - hGj P uc Y&

the latter
through

term representing
the injection

(6.4,3),
for

(6.4-l)

slot.

and (6.1-3)

the dimensionless
- hs - hG

of course

=:

b-

flux

of equations

then

a useful

yields

relation

enthalpy:

11
--- -F -

--

+--g-

Rm

hC - hG

the enthalpy

Combination

adiabatic-wall

p uc yc
---I--

. . . ..(6.4-3)

-IL,---,--,

0.2055n)

+(I-

. . . ..(6.4-4)

Let us now use the approximations


numbers used in section
Then,

from equations
hS -------

6,3,,namely

a quantity

assumed #-profile
to account
shown,

for

heat

which

expression
the fact

and matter

(equation

that,

are transferred

of spread

would be equal;

is very

to lie

between

zero

(6.4-5)

implies

that

usually

known as the -I---l-effectivaness


to a constant

constant

lying

and unity.
the quantity

times

between

(z/x)',

have

more rapidly
If

fast

; were equal
with

indeed;

Consequently,

equation

cooling,is
of this

It

therefore

is

to

we expect

the value

3.1'+ and 4..2.

than

p; = 0,

(h+-hG)/(hC-hG),
of film

the

in order

as many experiments

unity,

equal

into

(2.3-I))

flows.

of @ transfer

we have:

has been inserted

turbulent

the rate

= 0.03.

. ..(6.4-5)

momentum in free
the rates

the

s,

= --------- 3.14
1 - 0.251n

hC - hG
Now g is

1 = 9.94,

and (6.4~4),

(6.3-14)

hG

and insert

54,

satisfactory

to note

experimental

data

this

that

for

corresponds

which

to an n-value

nor has our argumant


to be regarded
to note

this

We therefore

been sufficiently

of what n-value
We consider

which

is

(2.2-9).and

to zero.

Thus we hava:

is

this

gratifying

which

is

introducing

turbulent

expected.

a discuss-

E - +(I

flows,

in

may be described
with

(2.3-IO),

z-z-

for

appropriate.

and @-profiles

equations

for

two- cases of free

the velocity

enough,

rigorous,

of magnitude

opportunity

3.6;

in equation

0.51

of 2, but it

is the order

use this

about

are not accurate

as a --determination
----

that

is

of about

data

report

b5]

the constant

The experimental

(6.4-5).

ion

Seban and Back

by

Q and D placed
-%

z.,>(l

equal

. ..(6.4-6)

- cosx~)

and
g-p&

= (la,--@,>

is easy to see that

It

arithmetic

for

cos -1

' Schlichting

dimensional

jet

show that
profile,
Hinze

b91

and Falkner
utions

being

p2]

reports

issuing

about

1.4,

The corresponding

which

z has the

of the half-widths"

(2/1;;)cos

measurements

into

-1

i (n-l)/r~]
by Reichardt

distributions
stagnant

profile

measurements
for.the

is

profile,

broader

cylinder

th c tompersture
the "ratio

of i; is

profilo

[34]

These

than

the velocity

about

held

a two-

1.42..

and Fage

k4]

and temperature

in good agrezmcnt
value

for

surroundings.

by Townsend

velocity

is -$;

when 7ci$

of the half-widths".being

once again

the velocity

for

(%+-@,)/2

the:raforz

and \ velocity

"ratio

reports

to

in the wake of a heated

the stream;
than

is

the temperature
the

The "ratio

1)/e]

[41]

of the temperature

of

. . . ..(6.4-7)

maximum and minimum values

hand is equal

r
u- nthe two profiles

equals

the value

maan of its

fl on the other

p -$-(l-cosTIq

distrib-

normal

to

is wider

of the half-widths",
with

0.63;

the data
WC shall

for

jets.

use this

55.
in subsequent
Fig.
obtain

work.

22 shows the relations

between

the mixing-layer

boundary

layars;

included.

It

rather

is

true

of course

is no reason

error

-I-

to suppose that

our purpose

namely
eable

heat

which

proposed

their

may bti written,


d

equations

(R&f+

e-----c---

with

I211
4

dRx

(L,., - $)

restricted
studied,
replace

numerical

are relevant

and (3.2-5)
The

latter

(2.6-l),

since

integrations

implications.

are

and the
is here
it

is not

of the equations,
Equation

(2.1-14)

2 = 0, iis:

(1 -

I21

d(lnw)
---dRx

RG
=I

with

theory,

and a smooth imperm-

which

(2.'3-14).

genersl

a.

is in conform-

therefors,we

(3.2-4)

Blternative

to consider

property

h.
-

(3.2-3j,

to its

but rather

the wall.

the pres&nt

is here

a fluid
section

enthalpy-

equations

preferred

the conscrvhd

attention

between

(3.2-21,

differential

any

of the

has b?cn most intensively

The fluid-dynamic
equations

of the

through

in application,

In the present

@ by the specific

However,

introduce

to show that

general

transftir

wall.

will

involving

modern knowledge,

to the process

is

the existence

of the transfer

is mainly

to btiing

ance with

are also

form has

some of tha implications

equations

in addition

our

the @profile
its

to

in the absence----- of mass transfer.

--I_-

We now consider
differential

cited

easy integration.

in calculation

7* He%t transfer
7.1 E_guntions.
-m--

presume

of all

just

boundary;

in the prasurricd @-profile

"corneP

Since

data
that

at thz outer

beeri chosen so as to permit

great

components

the experi mental

unrealistic

there

which we thus

and (I-12)

expressible

as:

.-.(7.1-l)

56.
-O;589) -

I1 -12=&+z&-

p(&

. . (7

l,rss
+ +,
1
1

q-3

and

&, from zyuation

The quantity

1 = ln(2.5168
The equations
the heat

to

-py(puo)

facilitated
first

side

The writing

defined

cnthcllpy

and

(2.4-6)

and

(2.3,ILC),

of the latter
out of these

by introduction

is &,

. . . ..(7.1-4)

the specific

(2.3~'13))

are:

the right-hand

' (2.6-31,

RGzE/l)

governing

transfer

becomes:

(Z.&l?),

reducing
equations,is

by analogy

the Stanton

to zE as:

. . . ..(7.1-$)

number S, defined

?l;/(hG
S ~ --_)I_---The above equations

The

of some new symbols.

GE -----h:~ - hs
hG - hs
The second is

simply

then

as:

- hs>

. . . ..(7.1-6)

imply:

----'h
= (I - r,)-{;
h -h
S
G
SE
-I- -;-;-;-4p'-

- &i,

+ z&

=E --e-m

Gp,Z,(l

$}

+ 0.7945 ZE - 2zE
-7
. . (7.1-7)
1 >

11-s

- ; - 1 + 0.2055

*.

+0.4P/l)

, . .

(7.143)

and
d(lhRG)
-dR*

+ IhRG

evaluated
Jayatillaka

transfer
from

dRx

(h

g, which-measures

The-quantity
to heat

d(lnw)
-I---

exerted
the formula

[55],

namely:

G-hs)S

tht: extra

by the laminar

(7.1-9)

resistance

sub-layer,

recommended by Spalding

may be
and

57.

I? =

9.24

{ (dcro$

I]

{I

+ O~28sxp(-0.007w~cro)~
. . . . . (7.1-10)

where T0 is equal

to 0.9,

andcr

is the

laminsr

Prandtl

number.
7.2

The
isothermal
-u_-em------The situation

flat

@at".

covered

by the title

is

characterised

by:
d(ln
------

UC>
=r

=;

dRx

-- d.(lnd

dR X

dH X

these

consider

case in which
are both

to,unity;

is the

general

n slight

considered

'
the

numbers

to be able

relation.

to

The second case

approximation

= I (deynolds

is made so as

analogy)

case the quantity

and the quantity-

2 !nust be put equ::l

equation

reduces

(7.1-B)

---S

Thus the Stanton


unless

The differential
be written

with

the discussion.

Case fir:
crt = r.
a--In the present

coefficient

is

Prandtl

here we expect

the "Reynolds-analogyl'
one;

First

and turbulent

derive

to east

of the equations

in two cas3s.

the laminar

equal

= 0

the implications

substitutions

.(7.2-1)

. . . .

II

d(hG - hs)
-----I--

We shall

P is equal
to unity.

to zero
Then

to:
= --Icl3

e..

number is not equal


cE is equal
equations

to one half

to gB (N.B.
(7.1-I)

. .

(7.2-2)

the drag

2 = 3/2).

and (7.1-9)

may

as:

d
--_IdRx
. . . ..(7.2-3)

Substitution
equations

(7.2-3)

are equal.
there

by reason

and (7.2-4)

are identical

We conclude

is complete

enthalpy

shows that,

that

similarity

distributions.

agreement

with

equation

of

(7.2-21,

when 2. and

cE

gg and l;B _clre equal,

i.e.

between

and the

the velocity

The equations

are therefore

that

in

exgectntions.

Case
(ii):
--

cctj

P#O;

uti+l;

rl#l

It

has
3 that -% and 1
\ already been shown in section
very slowly with distance,
R,x; we may expect the same

vary

to be true
treat

of

also.

the quantities

equations

r E
------

It

(I? - 22) and Lh as constants

m-

is possible
in tarms

equations

(7.1-2)

be re-arranged
quantities.

Ib/(hG
*
= ----,--

to express
of -s,

to yield
Thereafter

that,

for

equal

to 2.342

cE,

follows

the flat

Division

and

. . . ..(7.2+)

that

the resulting

the Stanton

equation

of 2 via

3.3);
(3.2-2)

the equations

equation

can

of the

other

numbar S, can be evalushould


(3.2-T)
with

its

here be noted
holds
aid,

with

1. can be

as:
0.9368

of the present

S; in terms

side

in terms

It

(7.1-a).

plate,

to yield

of this
and p by means of

cE explicitly

(see section

in terms

be re-arr,ulged
alone.

in

may be moved

the right-hand

1 = 0.4~~+It

they

- hs>

1, ;,

and (7.1-7);

by way of equation

expressed

so that

to

(1 + 0.4I?/%)

equation

ated

permissible

of the differential
operators.
,.
of (7.1-B)
then yields:

introduction

co

is therefore

and (7.1-g),

(7.19)

to the left

It

. . . . . (7,2-6)
section

of 2, n_, ~b and r

can

59.
As a test
for

of- the theory,

the prediction

isothermal

flat

R-x= 9.8X10>,

of the temperature
plats.

the tests

report

temperature

to the present

for

while
It

is evident

between

the significance
a broken
is

line

also

with

shown;

as the temperature
employing

profile

theory

the flat

in thl; form

In connecting

Chi

[57] has bedn used.

7.3

the wall
fluid
extreme

6.4
that

is

2 with

ed through

narrow

tht? table
exhibit

number which

in which

sink

on2

the flow

dominated.by

number versus
numbers of the
of Spalding

and

the effects

of

ari- familiar

makes

that

extreme

in thd region

in which

near

the fluid

contribution

nt,3-ligible

wz thus coasidcr
it,

case of

Now the opposite

on an insulated
of strength

of a --local

the momentum of the

the slot.

be considered,
the slot

downstream

considertid

was

through

distribution
heat

clnolysis

msda by means of

Przndtl

The curves

mass and momentum fluxes;


erature

gx,

tumoerature

entirely

entering
will

+ 5.5)

workers.

In stiction
cooling,

P)*/$A]

of Stimton

various

number and Prandtl

Adiabatic-.wsll
~~~--m."i---L----uheat si:>k.
-7

film

appreciated,

would be predicted.

predictions

plat e with

to heat-trtinsfel

which

better

bti

that

analogy.

fluid.

Reynolds

is cxhlbited
In order

by a Couetto-flow

24 shows further

the present

can

(2.5111 {y(~

the line

is

the Reynolds

Fig.

3, for

ag recment

ordinate

this

agreement

and the experiments.

of this

line,

aro shown cs trir*ngles.

satisfactory

the predictions

according

23 by a full

data points

very

[35]

UC = 0.3 and 2 = 0.63 as

is shown in Fig.

that

to

Keys and Klinti

'Phc prediction

with

the experimental

are:

cy = 0.7, so as to conform

profiles.

recommended above,

be used

on a smooth

chosen

which Reynolds,

theory,

will

profile

The conditions

2 = 0.0018,

one of

the equations

wall

measured

injectto the

the wall tempdownstream

of a

in heat units

60.
per unit
will

time

again

width

and width

be regarded

w.

Fig.

terms

therefore

The stream

as uniform,

25 illustrates

Downstream
third

of plate.

as will

also

the stream

the situation.

of the heat. sink,

of equation

velocity

(7.1-q)

may be integrated

both

the second and

are zero;

immediately

theeequation
with

the result:

IhRG = constant

= - i$
The enthalpy
obtained

of the fluid

from this

stitution

adjacent

equation

GE= 0 since

. . . ..(7.3-1)
to the wall

and (7.1-7),

the heat

flux

is then

with

is

the sub-

zero.

We have:

. . . ..(A+2)
Here R2/(Iq

- 12) has been inserted

R2 is more directly

calculable

in place

and is

of EG, since

sometimes

reported

by experimenters.
The expression
has a value
it,

in.the

which

(3.4-2),

In order
the distance

integration

of pressure
(3.2-7)

along

of

We can evaluate

E2.

gradient,

(7.3-2)

by the use of

and (7,2-6).
a relation

the wall

to relate

-hs and
GG
of the heat sink,

between

downstream

g2 to R_x. This

can be done by

of the momentum and mass-conservation


it

suffices

for

the momentum equation


approximate

drag

present
together

law for

purposes
with

the flat

dR2/dRx
Integration

side

somewhat with

to establish

is necessary

however

varies

absence

equations

it

on the right-hand

equations;

to make use of

the well-known
plate,

namely:

= s = 0.0296Rx-"'2

.(7.3-3)

yields:
R2

= 0: 037R,o"

. ..*.(7.3-4)

61.
The final

expression

for

the adiabatic-wall

enthalpy

is

therefore:
hG- hS
--mm
= .27.02~-O*~
X
iv&

I
. . . ..(7.3-5)

Finally

we make connexion

terminology,
which

noting

introduces

that

the "heat

fluid

of enthalpy

sink"

is

less

than

Then 4' must be replaced

mainstream.

where yC is the slot


to condi.tions

width

then

a slot

that

of the

by pC&(_hG-$)yC

and the subscript

in the film-cooling

the enthalpy
hG- hS =
--hG- hC

once more w-ith film-cooling

stream.

C relates
We find

that

ratio

known as the effectiveness


is:
$+ Z&y--f---)
1 0.589 - ZE2 (g---3 1.589
1
2
+y2)
c UC yc&J
--27. 02(p
----pm-~JFY~~~i
+
0.2055?)
X
. . . . ..(7.3-6)

Here the origin


itself,

since

finite

as a result

from upstream

momentum deficit
Theories

(or

excess)

various

being

values

Provided

authors

that

the

quantity

circumstances
for

example

pii;,

that

(?5O$);there
in which

in the wall

neither
jet

which

of the
fluid.

that

the
have

78, 46,

561 ,

the proportionality
(7.3-5)

and the foreof these

in the square

change the momentum flux,

good predictions

imply

show the limitations

change much, and provided


greatly

for

Equation

discussion

layer

be

to (pC~CyC/,,)~~'8

given

constant;

usually

and because

which

is proportional
by several

will

of the injected

cooling

been presented

be the slot

of the boundary

of the slot,

of film

effectiveness

going

not ordinarily

the momentum thickness

there,

flows

of 2 will

bracket

the injected

are however

of section

does not

fluid

the theories

condition

theories.

give

fairly

many practical

is fulfilled,
6.4.

does not

as

62.
Since
we test

equation

(7.3-2)

the former,

using

and b2 reported.by

is more reliable

than

the measurements

(7.3-6),

of (h-%)/(%-l+)

ments are selected

Seban =and Back [46>


,
for comparison which

relate

est values

so that

caused by the slot

of YJ~

have had an opportunity


to have values

ary layers

on flat

about

of a slot

correspond,

it

g.,,
-I = 0,903, 2 = S,77; with
the quantity
in the square bracket

(7.3-2),

be quite
It

It

the best

the

appropriate

that

could

origin

correspond

from the
that

slot;

equation

fashion,

405 in excess

of those

values

which

that

shown

good.
correspond

neither
0.63

equation

of

of
may not

gxwere

that

their

40$ greater
with

of
values
than

immediately

conclude

interpreted

in this

Since

the

cx measured

of the effectiveness

measured*

about

ExEaination

x.

(7.3-4)

(7.3-6)

some doubt

reveals

we can therefore

would yield

quite

although

were about

if

is

be chosen.

measurements

(7.3-6),

the

of the n - values

however

to equation

is

is clear

of the distance

of the momentum thickness


wculd

r~- = 0.63,

(7.3-2)

to check

with

sam-3 data,

Seban and Back's

(7.3-2)

as circles;

lines

would be acceptable,

would be possible

against

with

straight

in equation

0 and 1.0 respectively.


values

was

as before,

in equation

The agreement

Also drawn are the broken


to the insertion

region

to 0.210.

prediction
of equation
. .
as a full straight
line.

these

n = 0.63

.26 shows the measured values

Fig.

inch

may be shown, the

values:

then becomes equal

bound-

were inade in

of l/l6

of I?2 in the measurement

3002 to which

gX and 1

to equilibrium

The measurements

downstream

The value

about

appropriate

plates.

one foot

width.

disturbances

to the larg-

to die down and so that

are likely

air

Those measure-

it

about

is not in-

630

tended

to provide

equations
tinuing

numerical

in the present
the comparison

In section
effectiveness

case,

it

before

extremes.

may be erected
Fig.
iation

at a velocity
stream.

when fluid

appreciably

slope

of -l/2,

6.4;

at 1argc-x Z/Q,

layer

character

sketched,

values

ho?zcver

equations

4 the slope

it

shows the var-

downstream

than

distance
th-rough

that

which
the

slot

of the main

of z&y0 the curve

has the

with

of section

the findings
wall-jet

the

behaviour

changing

var.i,ation

of -z-ji:, which

easier

to solve

dis-

boundary-

therefore

and (2.6-j)

are to be plotted

curves

this;

treads

i-t is necessary
( 2.1-12)

mentioning,
situations

has a more conventional

may m-&e those

Of course,

worth

nany practical

greater

The correspcnding

- 0.8.

cases therefore

is injected

in accordance

and the Ilow

tkese

both
u-m.- the above tendencies.
versus

At moderate

appears

that

illustrating

of efiectiveness

than

the mcmeatum of the in-

may therefore'be

to exhibit

is to be expected

was such larger

both

topic,

2'7 is a sketch

the film-cooling

equation.(7.+6)
to g -0.8 e
In the

second,

It

in con-

here,

velocity

in the

tZ.s

is no point

to 5 -I';

lrfas neglected;

leaving

there

proportional

the injection

fluid

of the differential

r~as shown that

Was

the main stream;

represent

further

6.4 it

that

jected

p'aper,

was proportional

predicted
first

solutions

ever

to
is also

to understand.

the diKerentia1

numerically

ii'

This

accurately.

the two

will

not be

done here.
7.4 Summery
----A
Although,

in the foxgoing

has only

been considered

gradient

and mass-transfer

be clear

that

sections,

in flows

the differential

effects

heat

transfer

from which pressureare absent,

and auxiliary

it

should

equations

64.
are sufficiently
Although

it

programme
-al

flexible
will

be necessary

of tests

findings

empirical

to cover

to carry

out an extensive

of the predictions

9 probably
constants

coupled

of g, entrainacnt

clear

that

against

with

and functions

value

correct

experiment-

adjustment
(e.g.

function),

the predictions

qualitatively

the general~ca~e~also.

it

of the

-pro*file
should

of the theory

shapes,

by now be

are already

and, in the cases tested,

also

qui.te

good quantitatively.
8. giscussion

ofmlble

further

8.1. Plane
~m.ifo~~-properl
--I*Although
plane

flotrs

--- flows

the presen, + gaper


of a fluid

been possible

it

will

exact

numerica

-ions

and to dispense

the best

As indicated

it

has not

All

require

the topics

further

to rely

study;

solely

on

of the differential

equat-

with

approCmations

such as the

hypothesis.

Eoreover,

the extensive

firmer

possible

to

the main features

theory.

be necessary

needs to bE examined

literature

ally 3 so that

indicate

will

integratioas

stationary-state
experimental

properties,

of the unified

have been discussed

in particular

has been restricted

of uniform

to do more than

and implications
which

developments

conclusions

entrainment
in

systematic-

can be drawn and so that


1%~ can be derived.

certain
-Ithat modifications
can usefully
be made to the I&;PWhat are
relation
to account for pressure
gradient.
needed are a velocity
which

accord

exhibit
limit

With

section

profile

those

desirable
Although

to -t&e

[59]

seems quite

and corresponding

drag law

zero,

and which
,

to the zero-wall-stress

as -k.+ increases;

simultaneous

the development

it

above when ?L+ is

a smooth -j;ransition
of Stratford

4,3,

account

it

will

be

of mass transfer.

of such modifications

will

65.

certainly

raise

new questions

to in section

2.6,

the pressure
-ulatiOn

now include

gradient?),

and appeal

Of the easier

a judicious

oxtcnsions

It

far

law in its
than

too crude

has been mentioned

radius

of curvature

study;

quite

possible
properties
perties

to do justice

for

as well

If

they

gramme embodying

and other

of

quantitative

body forces
it

as on the local

such influences

strong

flows.

is

of change of local

can bc built

is

, is prob-

In addition,

into

the differential

work of the theory

some-

the effect

and requires

as ~11.

dG/dz$

md quantified,

one

though

to real
that

6.3),

buoyancy

themselves.

form,

of Tiead pa]

nm+depends on rates

(e.g.

of speo-

make this

present

may be large

probably

that

from

combination
should

that

(section

need to be accounted

5, referred

to the theory.

what more sophisticated


still

Should

some contribution

to experiment

The entrainment

-ably

(e.g.:

pro-

are detected
the computer

equations;

pro-

the frame-

enough to support

many such

elaborations.
There

are two main methods by which

law can be refined:

by the performance

specially

eqcriments;

contrived

of hygothcses

concerning

In the latter

connexion

whether
light

existing

of the boundary
implications

will

theories

on how rnG is

the m+ function

for

use of the integral

of entrainment.

be interesting

energy

to examine

can throw

by the various
Thus,

of

and by the formulation

of turbulent-s

affected

layer.

and analysis

the mechanism
it

the entrainment

one might

any

properties
explore

the

of Truckenbrodt's

equation

combined

with

@5]
Clauser's

recently
elaborated
by Mollor and
Cl4 observation,
kinematic
viscosity
Gibson k6] , that the effective
the outer

part

of the boundary

layer

is

equal

to a

in

66.
constant

(around

velocity

and the displacement

In-the

present

to situations
as occurs

0,0:16)

work,

in which
after

can certainly

(with

there),

simply

Whether

the equLations

general

family

has been given

some of the fluid

will

upstream,
Such flows

and computed by the present


modifications

zT -to take
--La
accurately

detailed

of velocity

flo?js

separation.

obvious

by allowing

require

of the stream

thickness.

no attention

be descri.bed

will

the product

bounSary-layer

set of equations

flows

times

study;

here

negative

values.

describe

reverse

probably

profiles

and

will

a more

need to be

invented.
The drag laws and all
paper

have related

siderable
about

mount

22

outer

of information

and the z+m$'

appears

(3

to smooth walls.

the way in which

I?-$

that

combine this

It

is truly

should

information
certainly

equations;

to justify

this

effect,

whenever

component
term

along

to re-examine

convection

the present
themselves

the
it
on the

the

"mixing-

easy matter

the theory

adjective

"unified".

as an influence

has of course
(e.g.

It

on the

a more obvious
gravity)

in providing

to

general

must be done if

the bodg forces


the wall,

i.e.

the present

in the momentum equation.

of interest
natural

It

both

influence

layer,

the ambitious

function.

available

influences

be a fairly
with

a con-

f41,9,31,30,22]:

Buoyancy has beesn mentioned


entrainment

already

has no direct

of the boundary

region.

layer"

roughness

in the present

Yowever,

is

relations

roughness

portion

-IAle examples

have a

an additional
will

therefore

be

sucn phenomena as turbulent

from a heated

theory.

Several

as likely

to provide

wall

further
useful

in the light
problems
tests,

of

suggest
for

57.
example the
This

would

e.g.

a long

"natural-convection
consist

adiabatic

of a linear

horizontal

wall;

jet"

source

flame,

or cooled

concentration

wall

(Fig.28).

of hot gas,

at the b*ase of a vertical

from measurements

at the wall,

of the gas

the entrainroent

rates

could

be deduced.
As a last
mention

suggestion

the industrially

in which
pinges

the present

important

flow

an axi-symmetrical

on a surface

causing

under

heat

inclined

to it

to see firstly

the reported
can predict
ditions

not yet

three-dimensional
air

flows

swept-back
effects
layer

fore

tion

wings

introcluce

profile

which

con-

layers;

three-dimensional

as all

scrupulous
it

is very
It

plane.

that

the present

in which

always

comgre,3sors,

is truly

example,

boundarydifficult
is there-

theory

the fluid

moves in a different

cam-ponent of the velocity

be used in the descrintion

is

in the

in the main stream.

a 'lskewed-waket'

might

unavoidable

to flows
for

are nearly

in the boundary

to note

extensible

from that

under

In axial-flow

have discovered,

a flow

layer,

t:ie theory

out on plane

there

indeed,

of importance

That

practice

inwards

researchers

boundary

to see whether

is carried

effects.

on aircraft;

easily

fits

flows

radially

to contrive

theory

o.f such systems

most research

in engineering

flows,

to examine

investigated,

8.2 Three-dimensional
--I_
---Although

the present

and secondly

the behaviour

thereby

eqerimental

is necessary

whether

data

im-

of such systerris have by

now been made ~8,69,7GJl];it


these

jet

at an angle,
Several

investigations

we

configurations

or two-dimensional

and mass transfer.

and theoretical

heading,

of these

direc-

68.
flows

was clearly

stated

by Coles

[G] ; however,

use has been made of the suggestion,


present

author

properties

It

hypothesis

is however

which

development.

to be described
entrainment

hypothesis

dependent
tude

on (say,

tions

(for

define

to)

along

rate

the absolute
gE.

and -the

two directions

is

magni-

Then the

momentum equa-

the wall)

suffice

to

the flow.
The hypothesis

on for

long.
layers

fications

will

tainly

just

lead

is

that

be the case,
with

along

the slot,
There

flows

in much detail

entrainment
already

this

is

which

prove

indeed

true,

in

as seems to

with

instructive

be made good.

three-dimensional

One that

near

component

can quickly

complexity.

hypothesis

as cer-

of entrainment

has a velocity

omission

is that

will

veri-

has yet been made of a jet

is no need to start

of great

should

it

no study

experimental

and these

descriptions
If

a stream

to three-dimensional
surely

be forthcoming;

to better

need not be relied

relevance

recognised,

such circumstances.

mixing

described

Once its

boundary

It

however

% I minus the vector


equation

u,
-4.2 now has
the obvious

the entrainment

proportional

of the vector

mass-conservation

is that

the

of boundary-

the velocity

by two comgonents;

was

completes

computation

Of course

layer

the

an entrainment

and which

needed for

about

boundary

easy to invent

i s plausible

set of equations

as the

no hypothesis

of such altskewed=wakefl

provided.

layer

because

knows,

so far

no

has been studied

a rotating

disc

to begin

by testing

against

the facts

I:117J

.
the

which have

been ascertained.

8.3 The influence

of property

HOW can the unified

theory

variations
be extended

to situa-

63.

tions

in which

through

the boundary

is easy;
which

the density

in part

it

shares

new questions

and other

layer?

In part

the now theory


with

but

vary

the modification

possesses

old ones;

to which

propcrtiss

also

difficulties
it

throws

we do not .at present

up

lc-;L?ow
the

answers.
The easy part

concorns

and the I - integrals


remain

valid

there

(e.g.

for

differential

Morcover,

as is

which

is

used in this

will

increase

however,

rather
the time

the increasing

digital

computers

relate

trhich

appears

from the review


in one respect
may prove
ing

the

are a

assumption"

connexion

[set

e,g.

the 2's

581.

by numerformulae

and expense of computatLon;


cay-acity

relation

ultimately

and availability

this

disadvantage.

with

existing

or "law

is uncertainty

of the wall";

about

the viewoint

and Chi

the constant

[57]

previous

lflaw of the WC~L~~to daminate

as is clear
.

of tho unified
for

of

theories

in the drag law,

by Gpalding

advantageous;

these
they

from algebraic

shared

to the s+^b x'

one manifestation

than

alleviates

The difficulties

properties.

certainly

to evaluate

means

assumptions)

"Reynolds-analogy

the necessity

to

possess

for.example,

satisfactory;
on the

proper-

by refcronce

of these

shown by l?ig023,

so often

the s's

to other

and profile

improvement

quadrature

In all

and ttre already

great

ical

ccan bo evalu-

the distributions

means are extremely

Admittedly

the latter

and composition)

equations

establishing

The f ormcr

can be related

information;

equations

therein.

difficulty.

p, which

cnthalpy

thermodynamic
(the

change;

essential

appears

ties

appearing

iCthout

ated without

the differential

Eowever,
theory

authors,
the whole

suppos-

70.
boundary
law,

layer

and wishing

have been forced

Thus,

the theory

and Chi

to provide

a reliable

to unacceptable

of Van Driest

conclusions.

[66]

is

shown by Spalding

c57I to be almost the best in its -predictions


this theory is built
on the assumption that

of drag;

the whole boundary

laycr

profile

is described

by the law:

+
where p is related
tion.

Yet Fig.29,

from tho

profiles

the supersonic

flow

in a mannor,

valid

work

from reality

displays,velocity

plotted

would reduce

of

ttlis

II@31

reported
of air

which

along

if

to a single

(8.3-l)

straight

line

In extending

fied

theory,

however,

the assumptions

velocity-profile

data
region,

which

then be subjected

is precisely

-x+ region;
largely

in attonpting

to extend

region

the cxtcnt

of current

inportant
unifrom
sufficient
sections

suggests

of the velocity

in variable-property
property

ones;

experimental
303, by which

can

study.

nixing-layer

component

to the

drag law,

to cover

layer"

the

the

hypothesis

Pig.29

uni-

the l=aminar

entrainment

ance becomes clear.

wall,
were

our existing

that

workers

so as to fit

contributes

to separate

it

outside

about

and so to the local

momentum thickness

However it

in the low

is;

the present

g can be devised

- 1)

an adiabatic

equation

region.

l'constantl'

poj

by various

sub-layer

mixing-layer

(8.3

assump-

assumption

the

sub-layer

505
*.0.

to u, by the Reynolds-Analogy

shows how reraote

for

drag

profile
boundary

but there
studios

that

this

the "mixingis at least

layers

have simply
for

the entrainment

ignor-

as in
not been

the procedure
constant

as

of
for

low-speed

flow

WCS deduced,

numbers

appreciably

matter,,

have free-mixing-layer

were used for


under

in excess

of large

seems certain

that

low-density

fluid

of entrainment
difference)

density

difference-

divided

opinion

of the present

will

not be achieved

experimental

out
It

fluid
(in

by

terms

by imposed velocity
are uniform;
the effect

but

it

quantitatively.
-l&it

t-he cxtehflows

a considerable

amount of

Ncverthelecn ,,a? the theory

does

a means of escape from the inadequacies


se all

characteri,

formulated

carried

to varying-density

without

that

such as

so rapidly

is therefore

theory

study.

seem to offer

for

of high-density

to express

sion

seems

2.5,been

QS when the densities

The autho@'s

Nor,

saction

does not proceed

is not yet possible

which

of zero.

entrcinment

vclocit2-

out at Mach

measurements,

in

guidance

conditions

to ho carried

so far;

the theories

its

further

which

have been

development

therefore

be worthsrhile..

to

9. kcknowled~~emcnts
The author
viding

wishes

the processed

and Schubaucr

.are

preparing

themselves.

which

appear

in Pig-11.

due to Mr. P'. Dale and Kiss

the computo.tions

based and for

pro-

form of the dcrta of Nowman, Causer

and Klcbanoff

Thanks are also


for

to thcuak Dr. lXOJ?. Bead for

assistance

on which
in proparing

M.F. Steele

the diagrams
the diagrams

7Cb

10. Nomenclature
Symbol

IYeaning

A constant

Typical
units

connected

velocity

with

the

Equation
of first
mention
(3.2

(6.3

7)

profile

Constant

in entrainment

law

(2.5

- 5)
- 5)

Constant

in entrainment

law

(3.3

- 4)

Constant

in entrainment

1CiW

(3.5

- 5)

Constant

in entrainment

law

(4.2

- 1)

Specific

hetct at constant

Integration

constant

(Btu/lb

degF)

>

pressure

Friction

factor

Constant

in approximate

profile

formula

Constant

Various

formula

(2.3

-10)

in s+- x+ relation

(2.2

- 3)

Constant

in 2+-y+

relation

(2.2

- 4)

parameter

(4.2

- 1)

(4*3

21

(3.3

2)

Shape factor

(2.1

- 6)

Head's

shape factor

(4.3

- 1)

Specific

enthalpy

(2.3

-13)

Intcgrel

quantities

Value

of E2 causing

shear

stress

A constant
velocity

with

zero wall

connected

with

the

profile

the velocity

(Stub b)
associated
and density

(2.1-1,2)

profiles
Integral
with

quLantity

the velocity,

associated
density

Mixing-length

and
Various

&profiles

E.

- 9)

Constmt

Pressure-gradient

-46

(2.2

in approximate

@-profile

&,L2

velocity-

conskant

(2.1

3)

(4*3 - 1)

73.
STymbol

Meaning

-c1

Abbreviation

Dimensionless

.-mG

for

units

a logarithm

rate

through

Negative

of dimensionless

the wall.

stream

- 6)

(2.1

-12)

(2.1

-12)

rate

from mainstream

Rate of entrainment
velocity

(2.2

of mass

transfer

of entrainment

Equation
of first
mention

T!cNpiCCl

from low-

in free

mixing

(2.5 - 6)
Rate of mass transfer
into

from wall

main stream

Constant

(2.1

(Ib/ft2h)

in the @-profile

(2.3 - 1)

formula
Dimensionless
additional

measure

Prandtl/Schmidt

to @-transfer
that

pressure

Newton's

the laminar

number differs

of the turbulent

Fluid

of the

resistance

caused by the fact

that

times

constant

per unit

of stream

control

(2.3 - 6)
in

Second Law of Motion


from boundary

flux

from

fluid.

Heat extracted

Beat

width

towards

wall

volume in fluid

(lb/fth2)

(4.3-l)

(Btu/fth).

(7*3 -1)

through
adjacent
(Btu/ft2

Reynolds
layer

R2

number based on momentum

number based on flow

in the boundary

-RmaxReynolds
velocity

(2.3 -13)
(2.1 - 7)

thickness
Reynolds

h)

number based on boundary-

thickness

Reynolds

layer

to wall

-RG

-13)

number based on maximum


layer

- 8)

(2.1

- 9)

rate

layer

in the boundary

(2.1

and

74.
Meaning

Symbol

the distance

Typical
units

of the location

of

the maximum from the Wall


R

-X

Peynolds
along

s
s
%

(2.1

- 10)

(2.1

- 11)

(7.1

- 6)

(2.1

- 14)

(4.3

- 1)

(5.3

-2)

(2.3

- 1)

(2.1

- 7)

(2.2

- 1)

(2.1

- 12)

WI

(2.1

- 11)

mJ

(2.1

- 4)

(2.2

- 2)

(2.1

- 1)

(2.2

- 1)

(5.3

- 6)

number based on distance

the wall

Xtanton

number

Dimensionless
Value

shear

of 2 which

the prescribed

stress

would

g,,

if

(zcf/2)

exist,

at

mass transfer

were absent

s*

Value of 2 which
the prescribed

i*Tould exist

A, if

at

mass transfer

were absent
t+

Dimensionless

measure

Couette-flow

u
u+

Velocity

analysis

Dimensionless

Width

-X

Distance

of velocity

analysis

along

wall

in main-

direction

Distance

normal

to the wall

IYon-dimensional

form of x appearing

in Couette-flow

analysis

Non-dimensional

velocity

Yarameter
(l-gE)
tude
ponent
value

( ft/h)

of stream

stream

zE,O

direction

measure

in Couette-flow

z
s+

of@ in

in main-stream

-W

Equation
of first
mention

in velocity

measures
of the

(=I&)
profile.

the relative

free-mixing-layer

of the velocity
of zE at the

magnicom-

profile

se-me I$ in the

absence of mass transfer

75.
Keaning

Symbol

Typk31

u-ii t s
Value

of gz at the same 1

in the absence of mss


Velocity

of other

by velocity
in free

coefficient

times

@5

3)

(2.3

- 3)

(f-Q

(2.1

- 4)

W)

(2.1

- 5)

(6.3

- 4)

la&nar)

(E diffusion
density,

condwtivitg

or

divided

at constant

he2t

by

pressure).
(+'ft

thickness

E'lomentuzn thickness
A smzll

2)

(g+)

plus

coefficient

Displacement

layer

exchange

si;ecific

(5.3

divided

of main stream

mixing

thermal

transfer

stream

ttTotal:'(i.e.turbulent

h)

quantity

Parawter

such that

measures

the relative

of

(l-&)
r~agrit-~de

the free-mixing-layer

ponent

of the

Viscosity
'lTotall'

com-

(la.U.na*)

turbulent

viscosity

Dimensionless

c7:1 - 5)

o-profile

of fluid
(i.e.

laminar)

h)

(2.1

- 7)

(lb/ft

h)

(2.3

- 2)

(2.1

- 1)

(2.1

- 1)

(2,3

- 4)

(2.3

- 4)

(2.3

plus

of fluid

distance

(lb/f-t

from

7JKxL @&(g)
Fluid

(lb/ft3)

density

Prandtl

or Schmidt

nuraber,

laainar
l?PcSalE1Erandtl

or Schmidt

number
Value

Equation
of first
mention

ofcrt

turbulent

valid
region

for

the fully
6)

76.
Symbol

121

Meaning

Shear stress

exerted

on the wall.,

times

Typical
units

Equation
of first
mention

by the fluid
tIIe

constant

in jlkwton's

Second ikw of Hotion

A conserved

property

(lb/ft

h*)

(various)

(2.1

-15)

(2.1

- 3)

Subscript2
E

State

which

would

layer

component

exist

at the wall

of the boundary

layer

if

the free-mixing
existed

itself.
G

Main-strcF

state

State

of fluid

State

of transfsrred

mrw

Uhere the velocity

adjacent

the wall.

substance.
profile

exhibits

a maximum.
'h

Where u, - *J has one half


value.

of its

maximum

by

77.
11.

References.

1
Cl

Black,

T.J.

boundary

and Sarnecki,

layer

with

A.J.,

suotion

"The turbulent

or injectionV1.

A oR. C. R.& ia 3397, octobcr, I 9%.

rid2

Bodenstein,

M.,

"Eine

Theorie

der Photochemischen

Reaktionsgeschwindigkeitenlt.
vol.

[I3

85, p. 329,

Bradshaw,
with

and without

Clauser,
verse

JUIC,

pressure

gradients".

21, No. 2, pp. 91-108

5
Ll

Coles,

D.,

layers

J. Aero.

in ad-

Sci.,

vol.

See also

layer"

[4a]

in

llAdvahces- in

Press,

Kew York,

J.H.,
F.,

and louvers.

5, pp. 181-202,

boundary
(1954).

J. Fluid

Mech.,

vol.

lp

L.E.

and

(1956).

Skirvin,

S.C.,

"Film

cooling

Parts

J. Heat Transfer,
.

of the turbulent

vol.

laycrq'.

Burgraf,

(1961).

boundary

"The law of the wake in the turbulent

pp. 191-226,

Chin,

R.

"The problem

D.,

boundary

7
Cl

A.R.C.

Academic

Z.A.M.P.,

Coles,

stream!',

0956).

layer".

[I6

jets

(1954).

boundary

l!echanicsl!,

pp. l-51,

wall

$960,

ItTurbulent

Applied

"Turbulent

an external

F.H.,

"The turbulent

Chem.,

(1913).

P. and Gee, M.T.,

and N. No. 3252,

4
Cl

2. Phys.

Hayes,
with

I and II!!.
vol.

83,

multiple
Trans.

pp. 281-285

slots
ASNE,
and 286-292,

78.

PI

Chin,

J.H.,

Silver,

Skirvin,

of a single

Dipprey,

D.F.

[I10

ious

Prandtl

fer,

vol.

cl11

A.E.

of general

13
Cl

boundary

Dorfmann,

LA.

heat

of rotating

loss

tubes

at var-

resistance

solidstr,

and Boyd,

V.M.

Engl.

and the
transl.

by

London,1 (1963).

Wotes

and velocity

heated

obstaclon9

cylindrical

of

NACA TR 7'72, (1943).

layers,

A. and Falkner,

N. ltDeterminathe behaviour

Hydrodynamic

on experiments
in the wake of a

Proc.

Roy. SCE, A

. ~01. 135, p. 702i (1932).


Glauert,

"The wa-11 jet",

M.D.

Hacker,

D.S.

W-iterferometric

Hama, F.X.

Univ.

Mech, 3

@at@,

investigation

of

a turbulent

_boundary layer with


ASME Paper 58-A-249,
(1958).

mass addition",

flat

J. Fluid

1, p. 625, (1956).

the stability,of

l5
t1

for

on the temperature

vol.

14
Cl

"Heat and mom-

J. Hea-t Mass Trans-

and Tetervin,

turbulent

Fag9,

-R.H.,

Int.

relations

N. Kemmer, Oliver

Ll12

slot.

6, pp. 329-353, (1963).

von Doenhoff,
tion

down-

(1958)

in smooth and rough


number&

and

injection

and Sabersky,

entum transfer

LE.

temperature

tangential

ASl!!E Paper No. 58-A-107,

9
Cl

Hayes,

Adiabatic-wall

A.H.

stream

S.C.,

!lTurbulent

boundary

Rep. Izstitute

of Tokyo,

(1947) --quoted

vol.

Sci.

layer

along

and Tech.,

1, pp. 13 - 16, 49 - 50,

by D, Ross (1953).

79.

1
C61

Hartnett,

J.B.,

"Velocity

distributions,

for

air

Birkebak,

injected

turbulent

boundary

Hatch,

J.E.

cal flow

tion

vol.

Trans.

S.S.

an adiabatic

Head, M.R.

1
Hinze,
CgJ

film

cooling

by tangential

injec-

fluid

propertiesI'.

November 1959.

in the turbulent

Aero..Res.

Sq+mbtir,

"Use of a theoreti-

wall

"Entrainment

' ary layer".

into

A,S,M.E.

data for

of gases of different

slot

3, 1961.

83, no.

model to correlate

NASA TN D-130,

t-181

layer".

E.R.G.

distributions

a tangential

and L'apell,

or heating

Eckert,

temperature

through

J. Heat Transfar,

17
Cl

R.C.,

bound-

Coun. R & M No. 3152,

1958.

J.O.

tlTurbulencell

McGraw Hill,

New York,

1959.
\

20
Cl

HUgel,

H.E.

pressible

"Velocity

flow".

profiles

D.I.C.

in turbulent

Thesis,

Imperial

comCollege,

1963.
21
c1

Kutateladze,
boundary

22
L-1

t-231

S.S.

layers

transl.

by D.R.

Levich,

V.G.

English

transl.

Liepmann,
free
1947.

and Leont'ev,
in compressible

Spalding,

publ.

mixingtl.

Bngl.

London,

1964.

hydrodynamics".

by Prentice-Hall,
J.

ItTurbulent

gasesl'.

Arnold,

"Physicochemical
,

H.W. and Laufer,

turbulent

A.&.

B.J.,

"Investigations

NACA Tech.

Note 12579

1962.
of

80.
24
r-1

Lin,
Oxford

25
Kl

CTurbulent

C.C.
Univ.

Ludwieg,
dber

Press,

H.,

London,

299, 1949,
shearing

stress

Vol.

in turbulent
1950,

Mellor,

and Gibson,

G.J.,
boundary

Dept.Aerospace

Reipp. 28%

17.,

Investigations

as,

NACA TM 1285,

bulent

Turbulenten

Archiv.

transl.

I~Untersuchungen

W.

die Wardschub-spannung,in
Ing.

transfer".

1959.

and Tillmann,

bungsschichten".

26
Cl

and heat

flows

boundary

of the wall
layers.

also. ARC 14800.

ltEquilibrium

D.M.

Princeton

layersft.

and Mech. Sci.,

tur-

University,

FLD no. 13, *

November 1963.

27
L-3

Mickley,

H.S.

and Davis,

for

over

a flat

flow

TN 4017,

28
Cl

Myers,

G.E.,

plane

turbulent

Schauer,
wall

Part

jet.

"The _

R.9.
Jet

develop-

Univ,,

Dept.

Rep. no. 1, June 1961.

boundary

to the study
Aust.

layerll.

Dept.

Rep. No. ACA - 53 (1951).

W.

"&rmetibergang

Rohren".

und Druckabfall

VDI Forschungsheft.

Owen, P.R. .and Thomson, W.R.


across

1.

Stanford

factor'!.

the turbulent

Nunner,

NACA

blowingll.

and Xustis,

"Some contributions

rauben

31
Cl

J.J.

Newman, B.G.

Supply

cl30

pl_ate with

1957.

ment
and friction
f
Mech. Eng. Tech.

cl29

'lMomentum transfer

R.S.

rough

pp. 321-334,

surfacesl'
(196%

J. Fluid

"Heat

455,

in
1956.

transfer

Mech. vol.

15,

of

87.

c-1 Pappas,

C.C. and Okuno, A.F.

32

skin

friction

of the compressible

ary layer

on a cone with

J. Aero/Space

33
Cl

Papcll,

Sci.

S.S.

vestigation
wall

foreign

A.M.

of air-film

bulenzll.

(1960)

llExperimental

in-

to an adiabatic

discharging

slotrt.

1959.

August

H.

bound-

gas injectiontl.

cooling

by means of an axially

Reichardt,

turbulent

27, pp. 421-333

vol.

and Trout,

NASA TN D-9,

34
Cl

Weasurements of

"Gesetzmdssigkeit

VDI Forschungsheft

414,

der freien

Tur-

(1942),

2nd Ed.

1951.

35
Cl

Reynolds,

W.C.,

transfer

36
Cl

W.M. and Kline,

in the turbulent

layer.

I - constant

12-l-58

W.

Ricou,

F.P.

entrainment

37
L-1

Kays,

wall

and Spalding,

Mechanics,

Ross,

D. and Robertson,

alysis

of the turbulent

pressure

incompressible

boundary

temperature!'.

NASA Memo

vol.

gradient".

"Measurements

D.B.

by axisymmetrical

Fluid

"Heat

S.J.

turbulent

11, Part

of

jets",

J.

1, pp. 21-32,

1961.p

"A superposition
layer
boundary/in
an adverse

J.M.

J.

Appl.

Mech.,

vol.

an-

18,

pp. 95-100, (1951).

c381 Rot-ta,

J.

-schichten

'VU$ er die Theorie


Strom.

as "On the theory


NACA TM 1344,

Forsch.

derturbulenten
Nr.

1. (1950),

of the turbulent

(1953).

boundary

@?cnztransl.
layer".

82.

39 .Rubcsin,
I:1
effect
fer

'IAn analytical

M.W.

of transpiration

cooling

and skin-friction

sible

turbulent

estimation

on the hcat-trans-

characteristics

boundary

of the

of a

compres-

NACA TN 3341,

layer".

(1954).

c.1
40-

Sabin,

G.14.

'IAn analytical

and experimental

of the plane

incompressible

turbulent

layer

with

arbitrary

gradient".
Report

[41 3

Stanford

Univ.,

JCD-9, October

Schlichting,

Ii.

McGraw, Hill,

c42 1 Schubauer,
tion

velocity

free

ratio

shear

and pressure

Mech. Eng. Dept.

1963.

"Boundary

New York,

Layer

Theory",

4th Ed.

1960.

G.B. ,) and Klebanoff,

of separation

study

f'Investiga-

P.S.

of the turbulent

boundary

layeP,

WCJAReport 1030 ('i351).

r1
43

Schultz-Grunow,
et2 far

glatte

17, pp.

239-246,

tional

"1Teues Reibungswiderstandsges-

G.

Platten!'

Luftf

(1940),

resistance

ahkforschung,

transl.

law for

as;

vol;

"Wew fricNACA

smooth plate&

TM,986 (1941).

c441

&ban,

a turbulent

boundary

injection".

Trans.

fer,

c45.1

"Heat

R.A.

vol.

Transfer,

vol.

tangential

ASME, Series

and- Back,

profiles

and effectiveness

layer*with

83, PP. 303-312,

Seban, R.A.
ture

transfer

in a wall

L.H.

for
fluid

C. J. I-Yea-t Tsans-

(1960)

!jVelocity

jet".

3, pp. 255-265,

Int.

and temperaJ. Heat Ftass

0961).

':

46.
CJ

Seban, R.A.
ture

profiles

tangential
k

and Back,

injection".

R.A.

transfer

48
Cl

ity'!.

Trans.

vol.

84, no.

Sigalla,

134,
4
cgl

50

Spalding,

Spslding,

D.B.

and heat

layer

with

free-stream

data

Engineering,

tanveloc-

on turbulent
30, pp.

vol.

"Convective

wall
131-

mass transfer".

1963.
f'Thcory

turbulent

of the rate

pre-mixed

of spread

flames".

Butterworth's,

Seventh

London,

of
sym-

pp.

1959.

S-pal-ding,

D.B.

"A single

J. kppl.

pp. 455-458,

Spalding,
stream

boundary

~~Experimental

London,

the wall".

52

"Effectiveness

C. J. Heat Transfer,
I
3, pp. 235-244,
(1962).

D.B.

595-603,

cJ

(1962).

ASME, Series

posium on Combustion,

51

C, J.

(1958).

confined

cJ

with

ASME, Series

and variable

Aircraft

Arnold,

cI

L.H.

a turbulent

A.

jetsf'.

layers

84, no. 1, pp. 45-54,

and Back,

injection

and tempera-

boundary
Trans.

vol.

for

gential

llVeloeity

in turbulent

Heat Transfer,

c4 73 Saban,

L.H.

Sept.

D.B.

Mech. Trans.

in wall

elopments

in tleat

kSME,

York.

New

for

the law of

ASME, Series

E,

1361.

llReat
_
transfer

from a surface

tinuity

formula

with

to a turbulent

a step-wise

temperature!!.
Transfer"

discon-

International
Part

II,

Dev-

pp. 439-446.

\. 84.
53
11

Spalding,
heat

transfer

turbulent
Phys.,
54
Cl

c51

"Contribution

D.B.

from an isothermal

fluid
vol.

Spalding,

no.3,

Int.

J. Ileat

pp. 21-33,

across

56
CJ

boundary

and Jayatillaka,

C.L.V.

Stollery,

pressible

turbulent

Fluid

Spalding,

boundary

D.B.

Auslsnder,

'IThe calculation

of heat

the turbulent
.high

Mach numbers,

actionf';

with

'lSupersonic

and Radiative
Olse,

boundary

Transfer".

pp. 211-276,

in incomof existing
Mech. Eng.

"The drag of a comlayer


heat

18, 1964,

Jain,

1963.

S.W.

and without

PIech. vol.

E.H.,

College,

Jan.

and Chi,

with

Cole,

examination

Imperial

IC/HRJ/lO,

D.B.

ilate

to h,eat

Y?ilm cooling

flow:

data".

Spalding,

flat

1954,

on

sub-layer

J.L.,

S.J.

turbulent

Report

Dept.

layer'!.

To be published.

and Peerless,

experimental

'

IrA survey

of the laminar

D.B.,

of

VoE. 7, pp;-T4>'?61,

the resistance

pressible

58
t-1

1963.

and experimental~information

Spalding,

to a

J. %"ng.

of theoretical

V.K.

57
Cl

plate

mmh

a turbulent

and mass transfer".

of

to the theory

Nass Transfer;

D.B.

flat

In Russian.

"Contribution

D.B.

transfer

Spalding,

streamlt.

6,

heat

to the theory

on a smooth.
transfer".

pp. 114-143.

J.
..

D.FT., Sundaram-j T.R.


and mass transfer

layer

on a flat

and without
Flow,

Pergamon Press,

plate

at

chemical

Chemical
Editors

through

re-

Processes

V. Zakkay,
London,

D.B.
1964.

[I59

[I60 /.

Stratford,

B.S.

skin

friction

rise".

J.

l%n experimental
throughout

Fluid

Stratford,

B.S.

"The mixing

its

Thompson,
boundary

62
CJ

.
6
CJ

Jawar,

and Golesworthy,

with

ambient

air

B.G.J.
layers!

Univ.

G.T.

airstresm

CP No, 687.

l'Calculations

of turbulent

Two Volumes.

Cambridge

Townsend,

Press,

LA.

London,

Ph.D.

boundary

layers

J . ?luid

Xoch. vol.

with

negligible
8, 1960,

C.

Berechnung
bei

Tollmien,
p. 257.

"2in

ebener

Ing.

Layer

Theoryl'

Braunschweig.

Journal

23, pp. 451-468,

Quadra turverfahren

vol.

Reibung-

symmetrischer

20, (1952),

number".

1949.

BUT

und turbulenten

'IThe turbulent

Prandtl

turbulent

Australian

und rotations

Arch.

Z.K.

variable

Boundary

stress%

pp. 143-155,

vol.

der l'aminaren

Van Driest,
with

wall

cylinder",

Research,

Truckenbrodt

Strbmung.

of turbulent

A. A. "The fully-developed

Townsend,

schicht

1960.

;tnlhe development

of Scientific

66
Cl

PP= 17 - 35.

of a cold

h.R.C.

wake of a circular

65.
tJ

of pressure

(1959)

Z.lil.

zero

review of existing
Thesis,
1963. Also, ItA critical
methods of calculating
the turbulent
boundary layer",
A.R.C. Report 25,109, August, 1964.
Thwaites,
B. (Ed.)
t'Incompressible
aerodynamics?
Oxford

63
Cl

region

with

Mech. vol.5

in a c~?ntrifugal"ficldlt.

61
I:1

flow

p. 211.

boundary

layer

In "50 Years

Ed. H. GUrtler

of

and W.

F. Vieweg u. Sohn, 1955,

86.

[67 I. Wieghardt
A.A.F.
68
cl

llHot-air

It,

Transl.

de-icing!'.

"The normal

Bradshaw l?. and Love E.M.


air

jet

R & M No. 3205.

on a flat

Soptembcr,

air

flow

impingement
ARC

surface".

'I 959.

!tInvestigations

Huang G.C.

for

No. F-Ts - 919 - RE, December 1946.

of a circular

-c69 I

discharge

of he,at-transfer

efficients

for

through

ing normal

to a heat-transfer

round

co-

jets

impingASME

surface."

Baper No. 62 - HT -- 31, 1962.


70
Cl

Schauer

J.J.

and Eustis

R;H.-

ment and heat-transfer


turbulent

71
L-I

Schrader
tels

II:

72

University,

Rep. No. 3. 1963.

"Trocknung

feuchter

Oberflachen

StrbmungsvorgWge

Warmuluftstrahlen;

Batchelor

of plane

Stanford

jetsn.

Tech.

VDI - Forschungsheft

StoffUbertragung".

cI

"Heat

.G.IC.

effects

in fluids".

logical

Sot.

vol.

convection

Buri

A.

zdgerter

Morton
lent

"Eine

July

345.

1954,

Bercchnungsgrundlage

Grenzschicht

B.R.

Taylor

gravitational

234 (1956)

far

bei beschennigter

GrundstrE)munglt.

and instantaneous
vol

484,

1961.

pp.

* *

bulente

74
Cl

and

J. Roy. Meteoro-

Quarterly
t30. no.

mit-

and buoyancy

358.

73
r3,

develop-

characteristics

impinging

Mech. Eng. Dept.

"The flow

Diss.

G.I..pnd
convection
sourcesll.

pp. l-23.

1931.

Turner

J.S.

die.turund verETH Zurich.

"Turbu-

from maintained
Proc.

Roy. Sot.

A.,

339-

f37l.

cl75

Morton

B.R.

J. Fluid

76.
c3

Norton
vol.

77.
Cl

Rotta

I'lech. Vol.

l3.R.

5.

plumes in a moist
2.

Vorced

atmosphere?

pp. 127-144.

(1957)

plumes?

J, Fluid

Nech.

(1959). ppb 151-163.

J.C.

pressible

"Turbulent
flowtv

Sciencestv.
Sterne

"Buoyant

L.H.G.

in

boundary

Vrogress

Ed. by Ferri.

layers

in incom-

in Aeronautical
A.,

Pergamon 'Press,

Kflchemann D. and
London,

1962.

Fig. 1.
Fig.
1. Illustration
of the
type of process which is
considered.
ooolant

Illuatratlon
of
and 8' profiles.

I
I
I, Mainstream
".

..

-.

Illustration
plane free turbulent
layer.

of
mixing

Fig. 2. Demonstration
of discrepancy
between theory and experiment
for
the local drag law of the wall jet.

25

2.0

7.5

1.0

lo
Fig.

15
5.

Shape-factor
Haa

[15]

I
20

*-J5

data for the flat plate boundary


The curves correspond to equation

25
layer collected
(3.3-2).

30
by

15

\,

A
\

10
t
(u,-4
(++

5
--

0
-2.0
Fig.

6.

Comparison of velocity
profile
predicted
by present
theory
" boundary layer on a flat plate
for a "stationary-state
(full
curve) with experimental
data of Schultz-Grunow
[43]
(points).

IO3

2x1G2

Fig.

7.

IO4

-0
2

Local drag law for a quasi-stationary


boundary layer on
Full curve according
to equation 1
a smoo-t;h flat plate.
ldation
oi
(3.~2);
broken- curve according to recommer
Spalding and Chi B7] . !I!he shaded area encloses the
experimental

points

collected

by

the

1Latter

authors.

3x?o-3

2XlO-3

2flO-4

1.2

2.0

1.5
B

Fig.

8.

8 as a function
of B for various R2
&cording to the present theory.
The broken lines represent the formula
of Ludwfeg and Tillmann.[25]

2.5

25

20
ear Profi;Le
ation (4.1-4)

15

10

0 represent,c
experimertal
data of Clauser
1

---.

10

15

20

25

30

some data

of Clauser

35

Fig.

9.

A test

of the velocity

profile

against

[4].

2
I

0.006

0.003

Fig.

10.

-*2
Shape factor
vermm pressure-grdient
to the stationary-atate
theory.

parander

according

I
I
Ii

0.001

I
olaflo

0.002

0.004

1
0.005

I
0.006

OF2

Fig.

11.

Shape factor

versw

pressure gradient;

experimental

data.

1.0
0
l /

. P

.7
.6
05
.4

93
.2
.I
0
01
Fig.

12.

.8
.6
.7
.5
J
Comparison of%data of Stratford
with equation
(2.2-l),
modified
explained
in text.

.2

.3

./

.4

.g
[59]
as

1.0

3*5

3.0

2.5
H
2.c

I.5

1.c
0

Fig. 13.

0.001

0.002

I
0.003

0.004

0.00'~

OF2
Display of values of -F,/\z,2(1,
-I$}f
Separation
is expected
boundary layer.
reaches a crit+xl
value,
say 0.0827.

' 0.006

or quasi-stationary
when this quantity

Persh
Spence
3- Schuh
4- Haskell
i- z!;ienbrodt

l-

2-

71 Zaat
8- Doenhoff&Tetervin
_
9- Gruschwitz

1.0

IO

Fig.

0.001

13a.

.0.002

0.003

o.ooJ+

0.005

0.006

OF2
.
Shape factor
versus pressure-gradient
parameter,
for
equilibrium
boundary layers;
comparison with earlier
theories,
after Rotta [77].

Fig.

14.

H, versus
prediction

H; comparison of present
with data collected
by Head p83

ce with
=
-germe&le'surfac

0.08

0,06

Newmanl

e Schuba erkKleb
9

off

, -

-m G

0.02

Fig.

15.

Comparison o.f entrainment


present theory with data

rates predicted
by
collected
by Head FE?].
,

2XlC

-3

*2
Fig.

16.

of drag law according


stationary
theory
for the smooth
with experimental
mass transfer,

Comparison

to the quaalflat
plate
with
data of Mickley

[27].

I.
I

1.8

107
1.6
H

1.5
I*4
1.3

Fig.

17.

Comparison of predictions
if H for the flat plate with mass
transfer
with the experimental
data of Mickley and Davis [2g.

1,

0,

0,

z-4d
0,

0,

0.001

Fig.

18.

c.002

0.003

0.004

o.oc5

0.006

o.co7

m
Variation
of gE with g deduced from the stationary-state
hypothesis,
with a -and D placed equal to zero.
Theycurve
depends on the en%ainm&t
hypothesis
and on the laws of
conservation
of mass and momentum, and can be regarded as
valid for very high Reynolds numbers.

0. 62

max

0.

002

0.4

0.6

0,8

r:

Fig,

19.

zJgmax versus

< according
to equations
6.1-l),
(6.1-G)
and (6.G7),
for
compared
with
data
of
I -9.94,
Bradshaw and Gee [ 31.

1.0

20

U
Gz

IO

P
/
/

Illll

lllll,

IIIII

5 x 10-3

c
I

+-

ma::
2x10-3-

2x&

59103

IO4

2x10'

P"maxyrnax~ /
Fig.

21.

Local drag law for the wall jet;


comparison of theory and experinent.

0.8

and
1 -z
1-z

0.6
E

0.4

-----i00

I
I
lo

1.1

4
Fig.

22.

The "mixing-layer"
components of the
velocity
and 6 profiles,
according to
equations (6.4-6),
and (6.4-7) with
Data from Hinze u9].
E equal to 0.63.

8O

10

IO4

IO2
y+ (z RG 2)

Fig.

23.

Temperature profile
predict&d
by present theory (full
the stationary-state
boundary layer on an isothemal
data (trian
les) reported
compared with e erimental

Kags and Kline

?I for

Rx=0.378

x 10 g .

curve)
flat

for

plate,

by Reynolds,

10

-2

0.3

1.5
2.0

~~liizz--profileFig
25Illustr
hot &as
stream-

of i lokal heat sink


In an insulated smooth
flat plate.

/////////////d////J
Insulated

section

- Thin
cooling
device

effectiveness
of film
cooling to be expected
when the injected
fluid adds appreciably
to the momentum flux
of the fluid in the.
boundary layer.

/
/
/

I,
/

/
'7
/
/
/
Wall /

temperature

Fig.
wall

d
/
I

Atmosphere
at rest

28.
jet.

The buoyant

0.2

0.2

Fig.

26.

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

Film-cooling
effectiveness
related
to
momentum thickness;
comparison of
prediction
of equation
(7.3-2)
with
experimental
data of Seban and Back [46].

26

16

14

12

IC

1 1

10

Fig.

29.

Experimental velocity
profiles
collected by Hiigel[26l
for turbulent
boundary layers on adiabatic
impermeable
walls in the absence of a pressure gradient.
"Ma
signifies
Mach number.

A-l

A
unified
---------

theory --I-_of friction,

heat transfer
w----------P--

transfer
in the turbulent
--------------------.-~-------

boundary

APPBMDIX:
Additional
notes
--II_------w---.---------L---,

Professor

Glauert

ed to him.
(the

which

use of an eesz-viscosity
------I--

with

out that

assumptiontt

The practice

to the universal

velocity

The viscosity

question,

1364)

the t'theoretical

should

not be attribut-

he really

recommended

distribution

appropriate

profile)

gives

better

agreement

that

of

numbers;

pG should

for

example,

out of this
reference
flow;

tne mainstream

is

this

practice

to be strictly

valid.

The simple

is to replace

PG by pref,

which

adopt

at --A
entry

is

for

a constant

jLref

that

first

If

PI.

appropriate
only

zero,

distribution

the "law

two-term

velocity

they

profiles

in present

equal

employed

linear

the whole
of the

of the wall"

to unity,

If

and
here

only

distribution

flow.

the

is then

the shear

stress

the velocity

form.

and Rotta

in which

notation,

some

the terminolog

has a sinusoidal
[37]

way

of equation

the second term is finite;


then

be written,

gE is

to a Couette

Ross and Robertson

words,

side

the velocity

term is finite:

that

with

(2.1-12),

in question.

of the wake" respectively;

of Coles

for

the viscosity

to the region

can be associated

the "law

requires

equation

8 3, The two terms on the right-hand


(2.2-l)

it

of 2 if

viscosity

one-might

is unwise;

in

of the

be independent

difficulty

main stream

at the section

has been used in the definitions

/uc,

Reynolds

is

Jet
-

experiment.

is

layerandwall

(November

has pointed

and the "plausible

line"

and mass

p8]

introduced

the second term would

as (l-zE)c

wake laws.

Coles

; in other
[6] deduced

A-2
the form

of the wake law from his -examination

experimental

velocity

ed profile

the function

differs

(2.2-l),

Equation

very

term is

the influence

in that

in excess

negative

(2.2-l),

several

-E=
z

for

layer

in an accelerating

are to be found

against
values

of wall

flow

with

as typical
while

layers

while

of boundary

la.yers

with

those

but in the semi-logarithmic


demonstrating

profiles

(for

to the wall.

It

is

the graphs

profile

po ssesses

The

1000.

of a boundary
for

0 <zE

with

that,

arise
z
-E
flow,

reverse

as appear

co-ordinate

also,

the

text,

1 have used the value

the universality

for

the well-known

and so in Figs.
0.4 for

in

system

walls)

LZE= 1, the
logarithmic

form.
Throughout

<I

pressure

negative

smooth impermeable

clear

some

than unity

the same profiles

used for

from

including

adverse

exhibiting

A-1,

of the velocity

those

z,, greater

jets,

conventionally

the distance

E, = 7.7 and ECs-' =

in boundary

Profiles

The first

of unity;

A-2 represents

velocity

than

expressions

of zE,

Fig.

close

of having

or less

graphical

may be regarded

curve

are typical

term is

and (2.2-4).

E plotted

happen to be drawn for

Fig.

flow),

ones and some in excess

downstream

The

we include

as capable

(jet-like

(2,2-3)

c , for

gradients.

ideas.

the wake-law

and A-2 provide

shows the velocity


the wall

as an obvious

flow).

A-l

of equations

recommendation.

in that

regarded

:is

of unity

(separated
Figs.

zE

recommend-

in equation

well-established

generalised,

his
but

be regarded

of mass transfer;

generalised,

zero

from his

can thus

of already

flow

of numbers;

of < appearing

little

(2.2-l)

generalisation

values

he expressed

by means of a table

(1 - cosn<)/2,

Couette

profiles;

of many

A-1 and A-2

the "mixing-length"

A-3
constant

k which

from which

appears

equations

in the differential

(2.2-3)

equation

and (2.2-4).may

be derived,

namely:shear
Thus 2.5 is

l/0.4,

0.625

(4~ 5.4),

is

It

= k 2P12((au/aY[)2

stress

1.6 is 4 x 0.4,
etc.

The choice:

been used by many workers


specifically
value

paper

however

in a Compressible

g = 7.7.

The incorporation

reduce

19621,

referred

difficulty

of deciding

of this

data,

are reported

is very

great,

(e.g..

difficulty

of a comprehensive

04it

field

is

appreciably

The case of ~~(0

and in accordance
mixing-length

largely

because

with

hypothesis,

of

the manner in which


graphs,

the

with

increases

operation.

available;

the
Coles'

but he has

work without

making

to other

needs more careful


It

The

of conflicting

more accessible

in the text.

below.

be adopted

sifting

of his

and

should

immensely

the best

the conclusions

is accorded

and @

on small-scale
data)

of &

prediction

literature

and because

supplementary

work in this

what values

inadequate

data

the

k = 0.41,

new value

between

in the published

experimental

basic

with

recommends:

to in notes

constants

the prevalence

reported

has

and has been

[63, along

Coles

the disagreement

experiment

data

k = 0.4,

0.4),

Boundary
1:"The Turbulent
Project
Rand Report

Fluidl',

September

these

2.5+(4-x

-.

R-403-PR,

for

past

is

%.

In a later

would

in,the

recommended by'Coles

7.7 for

Layer

I.5625

the

workers.

treatment

than

would be more appropriate,

the derivation
to write

from Prandtl's
equation

(2.2-3)

as:

m=O:
while

( 1z,p ,)jf$ = ' 20~1n{Ey'~

the more general

becomes:

")"

>

.....

equation * (2.2,LI.) ,correspondingly

(2.2-3a)

R-4
U

-m---

----+(It/pl)~

. . . ..(2.2-4a)
The negative
positive

sign

It
valid

sign

is

to be taken

the

when gE is positive.

is therefore
for

when zE is negative,

-%3

proper
for

0 only;

z =- [2.5s3(1+ln

to accept
zE<O

equation

we have,

Here we have generalised

as

instead:

E,)+1.~625m(1-+1nZ,)*]
+ (1 - ZE)(l

(2.2-5)

+
. . . ..(2.2-5a)

cosTGE;)/2

the definition

to read:

(2.1-15)

. . . ..(*.I-&)
Insertion
for

of <= 1 into

(2.2-5a)

yields

law valid

gE C 0, namely:
s3 =(-0.4zE/1)-

Equations
the following

(2.2-8),
forms,

0.625

(2.2-g)
valid

for

3.125ml)ln<

z= -(2.5$+

., -.
Z%

-Dlnc+

D s 2.5~4
= -

zg/l

then

take

- l.56*5m(ln4)2

+
. . ..(2.2-8a)

-&OS+/2

'

. . . ..(*.*+a)

+ 3.125ml
. . . ..(2.2-IOa)

+ 1.5625ml

I nowregard
of 2.

Ji

it

as preferable
This
1 '5

so that

. . . ..(2.2-6a)

~~~40:

zE + (I-zE)(l-cos~~)/2

= 2.5(s-m%)3

in place

ml

and (2.2-10)

+ z,+(+-Z,)(?

1'

the drag

the approximate
>

to employ

is defined

the quantity

by:

I ZE/DI
profile

+ (1 - z-E>

becomes:
. ..(2.2-qb)

A-5

Equation

system

(2.2-10)

then

ZEp0:

takes

the form:

+ 3.125ml
+ 1.5625ml
= 2.5(s

+ n(z,()'

For an impermeable
varies

but little

in practice;

value

I& by contrast,
sign

with

-c>
6

is

identical

1.

boundaries

which

between

7 and 12.

usually

a wider

with

range;

and it

It

arise

changes

z-,.
-.h

Equation

try

1'

turbulent

lies

covers

(2.3-l)

requires,

much moye explanation


will

wall,

in the

its

. . . ..(2.2-lob)

than

for

its

ready

is supplied

now to disentangle

understanding,

in the text.

the strands

from

which

which

exists

I
it

is

woven.
(i)

Knowledpge of th3t near-analogy

between

the friction,

processes,

heat-transfer

suggests

that

the @-profile

echo the velocity-profile


should
the

conforms

law"
with

(2.2-l);

corresponding

and the "wake lawl'.


this

in.5 the equation

expression

expression

have two main terms,

"wall

and mass-transfer

suggestion,

should

at least

it

respectively

Equation

to

(2.3-1)

hs may be seen by re-writ-

thus:

$3 - Zs =

(@,- gE)$<l

- coslg)

wake component

wallcomponent

. . . ..(2.3-la)

(ii)
it

equals

when

zE is

(@,-

zero;

eX) corresponds

of the wake component


that

of the velocity

the significance
section

the second term first,

zero when c equals

y= 1.

magnitude
I-

To tackle

G.4 (pages

of n?

This

it

we notice
equals

to I-+;

($3G - @&
it is the

of the fl profile,

explained

53, 54 and 55).

just

What however

profile.
is

that

If

in the text

the equations

as
is
in
of

A-6
g-transfer

were the same as those

it

would be reasonable

it

is known that

more rapidly

hea%,and concentration

we may expect

the valocity

4.

(iii)

The first

can be written

in curly

into

The subscript
explained

bracket

then

processes)

from

T denotes

with

&II as a rule.

$3 stands
It

of t-his

the fluid

for

unfortunate

that

import,ance

it

necessitate

special

convenience

has been mzda on the altar

The definition

is

this

transfer

(iIt = 0) wall;

simply

equals

Just

the case

to

iacrifice

of

of generality,

when t+ is
boundary,
equal

given
where

of itI,

of page

earlier,

An equivalent

y = 1, the quantity

across

definition

13

have
is

that,

to the outer
{(@S - @,) ~'~t'/d

which
so !Z&-pl' Ll is the $3 increase
a Couette flow having the same

z, p, %,, ei,, yG, pand

ed by the boundary

E, and

and could

the v<%lue appropriate

to jZ$ygs;

exist

of subscript

at the foot

to have bf;en introduced

been put more clearly.

values

The most

which proves

interpretation;

What is the significance

so of Q?

would

the curly

unwisely.

(iv)

is

in

and ($S~@,,)i"

practical

ought

state,

is the case of heat

of greatest

perhaps

the

phase.

to an impermeable

enthalpy

is rather

across

[4-g] .

does not vanish

from

of transfer

the l'transferred-substance't

the quantity

illustration

the

the neighbouring

elsewhere

of

(2.3-la)

Here,

that

it2

- 4"s.

cf equation

be noted

important

the form

can take

and by molecular

the fluid

should

between

the rate

in detail

It

to exist

these

however

mixing

c@s - a,) ~~~}~'/(T&


brackets
signifies:

of $3 (b,y convection
interface

turbulent

term on the right

as

since

are transferred

differences

and $3 profiles;

a non-unity

quantity

n as unity;

than momentum in free

processes,

at rate

to take

of momentum transfer,

layer.

An important

as arc possessconsequence,

made

A-7
manifest

by equation

(2.3-g),

whenever

(@S-@T)i"

is equal

(v)
term

Let us now return

of equation

equals

is

zero,

(2,3-la),

If

E, >I,

to unity,

the @ profile
is

ively

that

in equation
sufficient

by Fig.

adopt

with

in

the present

paper.

is no more than

a temporary

convenience,

at the earliest

opportunity.

objectionable

profile

by a polynomial
(vi)

the "friction
analysis

by

transfer",

fluid

The

and contains

of preliminary

work

However the assumption

seems

which

also

c3n be regarded

B. Squire

I.IYech.

Generalisation
general

tf,

temperaturetl
H.

qunlitat-

to be discarded
probable
is

that

a less

expressed

5.

The quantity

lsw expression,

is

the wake component

can be devised.which

in

in

observations?

the purposes

It

arise

which

e2s.y integration,

for

flexibility

at

example.

a profile

for

we

2 is not equal

do not

adopted

permits

if

22 for

experimental

the formula

. . . ..(2.3-lb)

a discontinuity

such discontinuities

(2.3-l)

such as that

that,

must exhibit

Why therefore

answer is

from equation

in the mainstream,

follows

d.isplayed

in conflict

@S when (gS- @T)i"

(ldG-gE)n

at points

@G. It

We know that
practice.

%-!Z$=

i.e.

fl equals

This

equals

f13

Z, = 1, that:

know that

y = 1.

to 8,

of the second

we can conclude

<= 1, (%s-%T)itl=O:
Now for

equal

to zero.

stated,

by putting

fis is

to consideration

(2.3-la).

as just

that

E.,

in the wall-

as a generalisation

introduced
("General

into

of

heat-transfer

discussion

on heat

A.S.K.E.,

is involved
property

appears

London,
1951, page 185).
.
because we are dealing with a

@, and allowing

mass transfer

to

exist.
(vii)

Figs.

equation
(a=&,
wall,

A-3 and A-4 display

(2.3-l)

for

the specific
no mass transfer

the particular
enthalpy),
(2 = 0),

some implications
case of:

low velocities,
; = '0.63,

heat

of
transfer

a smooth

and the Prandtl

A-8
number taken

as 0.7 in the laminar

the turbulent

region.

to -%, defined
Qg -

with

&M&G

Figs.

The parameter

later
-

&s>

in the paper

allowance

which

ures

the Reynolds

from

(viii)

is

(section

In equations

the differences

(and '1+ and

modifications

value

of:

this

I-

represent
theory,

Further

appears

quantity).

It

is

turbulent

the quantity
the numerical

of the

quantities

that

it

to disregard
condition

satisfy

theoretical

Press,

1963.

would

be wiser

to describe

no experimental

order

N.I.T.

I nowthink

i.e.

both

g has been

and experimental,

in the book by G. iL7. Abramovich:

jets",

"equilibrium"

which

t+,

quadrature.

the values

information,

may be found

defining

depart-

to regard

and (214-3)

by numerical

A-5 represents

Fig.

zero,

for

need be made to the

as influenced
by zE and 1';
II -I2 and l-r,,
taken as 7.7 and k as 0.4 in the computations.

0IO

the

and has been evaluated

08

as

Analogy.

(2.4-2)

0.589

the counterpart
7.1)

equations
when -E
z is negative:
it suffices
s and2 3 as being invariably
positive.

07

in

be compared

is made, in the present

Oniy slight

and 0.9

k,

The two diagrnms.may

and A-2;

A-l

region

layers

the difference

and that
boundary

for

employed

layers

"Theory

to adopt
which

the term

dgE/dx_ equals

between
by Clauser.

have so far

of

this
Certainly

been studied

either
condition
with a precision
of the
e-v
of the difference
between the two conditions.

A-9
'Part of this section
is
0II
layers
on rough plates
also;
section

12

for

of smoothness

I now regard

indeed

is

only

in
that

the

is introduced.

adopted

in this

of the entrainment

E, as giving

results

which

uncertainties

in

the flat-plate

therefore

it

boundary

of E, is derived,

the procedure

the determination

are rather

section

constant

and of

too dependent

experimental

on the

data.

It

seems preferable

experimental
value

with

3./C, where the value

condition

concerned

data

to base the value of E, on


.
the velocity
profile
(7.7 is the

for

implicitly

recommended by Coles

of such a study);

the entrainment

mined from

study

direct

the boundary
equation

layer.

estimates

of the rate

with

a simpler

is

best

of increase
study

C,, =0.1023

the entrainm#ent

would sup-port

const,ant

Such a direct

(3.3-5),

[I6 , as a consequence

of flow

shows that

considerably

rates;

over-

the experimental

relation

giving

-m G = 0.06

(I - zE>

deter,

lower

data

values,

such 3s:
zvu <I

013

The use of g = 7.7 rather

to in note
(But

012

, actually

than E = 6,542,

makes the agreement

a direct

and since

assumption,
the cosine
quite
conflict

it

which

appears

between

and Tillmann,

good

itself

fits

that

input

the velocity

there

exists

has been
profiles

a certain

based on velocity-profile
of Coles

The more one 'sifts


data

urbikrary

the drag law recommended by Ludwieg

the recommendations

experimental

less

1.

our only

wake law,

well,

referred

Since the drag


of note 0 -3
consequence of the velocity-profile

see the second part

law is

. . . ..(3.3-5a)

for

and

[61.

through
velocity

data,

the reported
profiles

and processed

and drag,

the

in

A-10
more anomalies

one finds.

a further,

perhaps

which

identify

will

main question
systematic

fin::l,

is:

Are they

in velocity-profile

there

in the data which

014

of reference

for

The

inaccuracies

not yet

or

accounted

Such a factor

referred

also

data.

for

might

to at the foot

exist*serious

have been reported

for

be
of

disagreements
flows

without

gradients.

Some minor

sinc,e

experimental

effect

need for

of the anomalies.

expressions?

However,

an urgent

of the available

of a factor

the pressure-gradient

pressure

study

the sources

expressions

page 35.

There is

errors

were made in processing

RIO] and plotting

the qualitative

the correctly

them on Fig.

conclusions
processed

the data
However,

11.

would not be different

data,

Fig.

has not been

II

amended.

0I2

A still

more plausible

entrainment

rates

are lower

The use of equation


appreciably

closer

experimental
causes

explanation
than

(3.3-5a)

of the pressure

boundary-layer

on the wall

law can be ignored.

Exact

influence

integrations

have now been performed


agree

closely

with

The shape-factor
modifications

ality

explanati.ons.

is however

of the pressure

not
gradient

(by W. B. Nicoll);

the results

of the quasirstationary
remains

to the value

in the experiments

which

equations

anomaly

to

about

to zero

discourage

unexplained;

of E, and

Uncertainty

and the closeness

gradient

of the differential

those

do not remove them.

predicts.

(3.3-5)

12
), gives
0
the predicted
and

This

separation.

the direct

16

the

(see note

to say that

equation

agreemen t between

values

is that

reasonable

the entrainment
the two-dimension-

of the pressure

further

theory.

attempts

gradient
to find

law

A-II

This
another

a suitable

respect

accord
with

is

with

in which

the present

two further

K. A. Smith
Turbulent

Boundary

theory,

that

Layer'l,A.I.A.A.

Journal,

page 1500.

The first

reports

concerning

the velocity

profile

together

with

with

blowing,

part

of the boundary

layer,

Zmax/PP

versus

for

shear

stress

report
that

the impermeable

it

for

is rather

Mickley/Smith
C >O.l,

these

+-II)*
f(

layer

<) is

(I

by algebraic
l-z

Since,
is

manipulation;
=i

in the region

of the order

not differ

exhibited

of Mickley
away from

...
law"

flat

for

the result

is:

This
equation

f( y)

_z has an average
(A16-I)

is significant,

by the data.

..(A16-2)

the equilibrium

plate.
with

by an amount which

+to the scatter

data

comparable

of zE, equations

do not

. . . ..(A16-1)

+ +j}=f(r,

<>O.l,

the maximum

in the form:

* + (s+~z)~]

(s+m)

to

as:

in the region

on an impermeable

can be made more directly

identical

= (s+m~)~f(~)

the "defect

of

Hence the

the velocity-profile

the outer

but we may surmise

p~~(~+~~~*

can be expressed

plate

in the form

the authors

quantity,

and shows that,

the wall,

where again

layer;

1-z

[27]

that

Here z max is

say:
takes

2, 1964,

flat

a curve

can be expressed

and Davis

boundary

5 , gives

to

vol.

a porous

finding

Stevenson

2;+{k

close

Boundary

new experiments

when plotted

this

1, 1963,

"Turbulent

the conclusion

in the boundary

any values

vol.

Journal,

for

plate.

and

a Transpired

of T. N. Stevenson,

paper

do
-to make connexion

of H. S. Nickley

Law for

A.I.A.A.

that

data

and also

Transpirationf',

(yu)/(

to mention

the Cckley/Davis

Defect

and that

with

at which

publications;

f'Velocity

page 1685;
Layers

point

equation
(Al6-I)

. . . ..(~16-3)
value

and ,(Al6-3)
having

which
do
regard

A-12
Now the velocity
represented
1-i

profile

by equation

adopted

(2.2-g),

in the present

can be written

theory,

as:

~"-z~~l+~cm~~]
-i ---(s + m zE>

(~+mzE)~2.51nF;
[

. . . ..(s16-4)

The quantity
if

in the square bracket


is
3 is a constant.
-gE)/(S+;zE)

(I

A repetition
however
(l-

from

unity;

to zero, indeed
+ g $1 3 is a constant

g*>&

2.342

this

constant

from

impermeable

We may conclude
and those

satisfactory;

for

the value

portion

Stevenson's
The differences
order

as the scatter

the limits

since
for

to arrange
,must

be that

velocity
it

is

mixing

will
to note

are

4 as 2.7

to < =

are

(deduced

and

I);

2.2.

of the same

data.

What happens when ; exceeds


This

question

has practical

possible,experimentaliy,
magnitude.

will

take

The answer

a shape appropri-

(gE= 0) and the region

move away from the wall.

of large
However

that

the nrescnt
theory cannot
--a-----qucntitativelv,
because the equations
------L

in such a case.

p resumably
that

profile

layer

the process
------

have no solution

requirement

c:Lezrly

the velocity

important

extension;

is

the predictions

an A_-value of about

in the text?
it

gradients

describe
-me

is:

and Smith,

values

reilort

m
_ to have any desired

ate to 2 free

with

2.2 and 2.342

question

3.3.

of Mickley

in the experimental

indicated

significance

2.7,

the result

in section

law is extrapolated

between

with

when the logarithmic

of e( 5) gives

An interesting

17

and Smith
obtained

defect

version

data

Even the numerical

of 1-z

of their

plate

the findings

Mickley

3.2,

yields

are in accordance

theory.

of Y, alone

when -E
z is not too far
which we derived the

is &, for

that

of Stevenson,

of the present

from

of section

not put equal

that

value

of the analysis

a function

the first

the velocity

Clearly
step

profile

the theory

requires

must be to relax

the

obeys equation

(2.2-4).

'

A-13

The differences

18

and that
for

of the present

large

values

are always

(6.1-'I)

opinion,

that

description

in particular,

It

the cosine

form

Probably

family

into

and comprehensive
necessary

if

restores

k = 0.41

that

elaborate;

moreover,

ment rates

for

be more reasonable

30th

will

be reported

hypothesis

these

leads

agrees

fairly

such a

however

a-careful
da-ta is

theory'and
of

formula

referred

exercises

experiment
= 0.4 approx-

to over-estimate
than unity.

-1)

have now been carried

entrainIt

would

. . . ..(6.3-18a)

out and

The Clauser-hellor-Gibson

elsewhere.

to the entrainment

well

to

is unjustifiably

- rnG*i 0.03(+

in

of zZ.

to adopt:

ZE <I

This

as

(2.2-l)

incorporating

of g = 6.542,

instead

appears

zE;>l:

to be

by a polynomial

of experimental

not much greater

prove

quo.

this
it

to wall-

the term

theory;

between

the status

I now think

in my

are to be chosen correctly.

makes the agreement

imately

20

the present

the functions

The use of

about

than

to the

would be functions

examination

worse.

will

replaced

The use of g = 7.7 instead

above,

suited

contribution

expression;

of which

would be no difficulty

,019

is not well

it

maxima

certain,

to abandon equation

in the future,

the coefficients

observed

the wall

therefore

therefore

a --auniversal
velocity-profile
might be better
u - cosn%)/2

profile

nearer

is

profile

the velocity

to be significantly
implies.

profiles.

There

are consistently

of the free-turbulence

necessary,

5,

the measured velocity

theory

of +;

found

equation

jet

between

law:

-mGe0.07(1with

experiment.

zE)

A-14
The Truckenbrodt
integral"

leads

seriously

with

recommendation

to an entrainment
the experimental

data

The cause of the discrepancy

be that

Truckenbrodt's

this

new proposal
agrees

with

for

the entrainment

and the earlier


theories

each has.an
function,
exists

has made it

is

that

to devise
function

input,

in the other

result

as the present

one,

as consisteqt
equation;

in one case the entrainment

the dissipation

of the present

theory

are likely,

to dissipation

at least

being

good

The most important

theories.such

two functions.

The extension

to

which

based on the integral-kinetic-energy


empirical

D 42694/l/wt.61

values

appears simply
.'
is not a very

one of Head, can be regarded

between

currently

disagrees

small

possible

data.

these

022

for

the dissipation-integral

of the exploration

with

recommendation

recognition

the. tldissipation

law which

of ZE'

one;

for

integral;
Future

a relation

developments

in my opinion,

to refer

as much as to entrainment.

of the theory

carried

out.

K4 lo/65

R & CL

to rough

walls

is

Fin.

A-l.

Graphical

representation
profiles;

of velocits

linear
distance
co-ordinate.
I
.
91
3
! +&f= 1000
k.0:

E = 7.7

valid
for a smooth
wallwith
zero mass
transfer

r
Fig.

Graphical
of velocity
----------- representation
logarithmic
distance
co-ordinate.
---

A-2.

40

profiles;
--

d=
-UG
yF

1000

30 _

kl.

0.4

E = 7.7

valid
for a smooth
wall with zero mass
transfer

3
20

3
5
Q

I
10

-5
N--E
-15

Ii

20

50

III1

/I

3
y@

/I

10'

(P y')

/
/ '

/
/

/'

Ill

10"

Pig.

A-3. -Pm Gkaphical


profiles;

representation--linear
distance
--

of enthalpy
co-ordinate.

R,s3 = 1000

3*c
n=O-63
m=O

c
(

u = 0.7 k=o.b
Ufi=0.9 E=6*542

= hA
hc- h, ,
2-c

Pig.

A-4.

Graphical
logarithmic

t+

representation
of enthalpy
distance
co-ordinate.
1

-/

T\

1 /-(h- h,Xqd \

Ordinate

RGs*=lOOO
n= O-63 u=O.7 k=O.4

= 5-5 + 2-y
I

Lny+

profiles;

Fig.

0.4

0.2

A-5.

Values of some properties


velocity-profile
family.
and I- I
II-I2
"VYG

of the
Note that
= S,/yG.

A.R.C. C.P. No. 829


December, 1964
D. B. Spalding
A UNIFIED THEORY
OF FRICTION, HEATTRAEFERAND NUS
TRANSFER
IN THE TURBULENT
BOUNMRYLAYERAND WALLJET

A.R.C. C.P. No. 829


December, 1964 a
D. B. Spalding
A UNIFIED THEORYOF FRICTION, HEATTRANSFER
ANDhASS
TRAWFERIN THE TURBIJLENIBOUNDARY
LAYERAND WALLJET

General equations are derived for the conservation of mass, momentum


and any other conserved property, and their solution is made possible by
means of: (a) introduction
of three-pa&meter profiles,
(b) a bypothesfs
about entrainment from the mainstream into the boundary layer.
Appllcations are made to the following plane unirorm-property
flows along smooth
walls:
the impermeable flat plate;
the impermeable wall in the presence
ot an adverse pressure gradient;
the flat plate With mass transfer;
the
wall jet In stagnant surroundings;
and heat transrer
in the absence of
mass transrer.
The assumptions appear to be sufficiently
realistic
and
flexible to provide a simple single calculation method for the above
processes, even when these operate simultaneously and in conjunction with
roughness, three-dimensional,
flow reversal, and variable-property
errects.
The main barrier to further progress is uncertainty about the
way in which entrainment is influenced by density variations.

General equations are derived for the conservation of mass, momentum


and any other.conserved property, and their solution is made possible by
means or: (a) introduction of three-parameter pmfiles,
(b) a hypothesis
about entminment fmm the mainstream into the boundary layer.
Applications are made to the IOllowing plane unirorm-property
flows along smooth
the impermeable wall in the presence
walls:
the impermeable flat plate;
of an adverse pressure gradient;
the rlat plate with mass transrer;
the
wall jet in stagnant surroundings;
and heat transrer in the absence of
mass transrer.
The assumptions appear to be sufficiently
realistic and
flexible to provide a simple single calculation method for the above
processes, even when these operate simultaneously and in conjunction with
roughness, three-dimensional,
flow reversal, and variable-property
errects.
The main barrier to further pmgress is uncertainty abOut the
way in which entrainment is influenced by density variations.

A.R.C. C.P. No. 829


December, 1964
D. B. Spalding
A UNIFIED THEORYOF FRICTION, HEATTRANSFER
AWDMASS
TRANSFERIN THE TURBULEWI
BOUNDARY
LAYERAND WALLJET
General equations are derived for the conservation or mass, momentum
and any other conserved property, and their solution is made possible by
means or: (a) introduction
or three-parameter pmriles,
(a) a hypothesis
Appl icaabout entrainment rmm the mainstream into the boundary layer.
tions are made to the rollowing plane uniform-property
flows along smooth
walls: - the impermeable rlat plate;
the impermeable wall in the presence
the flat plate with mass transfer;
the
of an adverse pressure gradient;
wall jet in stagnant surroundings;
and heat transfer in the absence of
The assumptions appear to be s~friciently
realistic and
mass transrer.
flexible to provide a simple single calculation method for the above
processes, even when these operate slmultanecusly and in conjunction with
roughness, three-dimensional,
flow reversal, and variable-prcpertY
errects.
The main barrier to further pmgress is uncertainty about the
way in which entrainment is influenced by density variations.

CR No. 825

0 Crown

copyright

1965

Printed and published by


HER MAJESTYS

STATIONERY

OFFICE

To be purchased from
49 High Holborn, London w.c.1
4;!3 Oxford Street, London w.1
13~ Castle Street, Edinburgh 2
109 St. Mary Street, Cardiff
Brazennose Street, Manchester 2
50 Fairfax Street, Bristol 1
35 Sm.allbrook, Ringway, Birmingham 5
80 Chichester Street, Belfast 1
or through any bookseller
Printed in England

S.O.

Code No.

23-9016-I

C.P. No. 82

You might also like