Queen's University

Dept. of Mechanical and Materials Engineering

MECH 341
Fluid Mechanics II

Boundary Layer Over Flat Plate

Darko Matovic, 2012

 Objectives:

● Introduce Karman integral theory for flow in the

boundary layer
● Apply it to laminar flow over flat plate
● Boundary layer equations and Blasius solution
for laminar flow over flat plate
● Turbulent flow solutions
 What do we seek to find by
boundary layer analysis?
dU
➔ wall shear stress,  =
w
dy
➔ boundary layer thickness, = y∣u=0.99 U ∞

➔ displacement thickness,  =∫ 1−
 0
*
U
u
dy  
➔

➔
momentum thickness,
Shape factor, H=

*
=∫
u
0 U
1−
u
U
dy  
 2 w
➔ Skin friction coefficient, cf= 2
L  U
➔ Total drag force, D L=b ∫ w  x dx
0 L
2 D L 1
➔ Drag coefficient, C D= 2 = ∫ c f dx
U b L L 0
where b and L are plate sizes in spanwise and streamwise directions and U is the
free stream velocity, outside boundary layer.
 Karman and Polhausen linked wall
shear stress with momentum thickness:
Straightforward control volume analysis for boundary layer
(example 3.11 in the textbook), gives the total drag force:
 

D x= b ∫ u  U −u  dy= b U 
0
2
where =∫
u
0 U
1−  
u
U
dy

x
dD 2d
also, D x=b ∫  w  x dy resulting in =b  w = bU
0 dx dx

2
or, more explicitly,  w = U
d
dx
=U 2 d
∫ u
dx 0 U
1−u
U
dy 
Now, we have an alternative way of finding the wall shear stress,
from momentum thickness, rather than from the velocity gradient
at the wall.
 Parabolic approximation

To get a numerical result for laminar flow, Karman fitted the actual
2
velocity profile with a parabola: u=abycy
∂u
with b. c.s u=0 @ y=0 ; u=U @ y= and =0 @ y=
∂y
Fitting the parabola to these three boundary conditions gives the
system of three linear equations:
a=0 a=0
b c  2 =U with the solutions: b=2 U /
b2 c =0 c=−U / 2
2
u y y
=02 − 2 =2 − 2
U  
where = y / is the distance scaled by the boundary layer thickness.
Solutions for parabolic approximation,
y y2
 
u x , y=U 2 − 2 =U 2  − 2  , 0≤ y≤  x
 
¿

U d 2 U 2U
 w = 2 − ∣ =0 = 2−2  ∣ =0 =
 d  

  
 2 2
y y y y 2
=∫ 2 − 2 1−2  2 dy= 
0
    15

from  U
d  2U
dx
=
2

⇒

x
=

30  x 5.5
U
= 1/ 2
Re x

 
 2 *
y y   1.83
 =∫
*
1−2  2 dy= ⇒ = 1/ 2
0
  3 x Re x
L
2  w 0.73 1 1.328
cf = 2
 U Re x1/ 2
; C D= ∫ c
L 0 f
dx=
Re1/ 2
x
 Comparison of different solutions

Source: Munson, Yong, Okiishi, “Fundamentals of Fluid Mechanics”,

3rd ed. Willey, 1998
 Turbulent flow
● There is no exact theory for turbulent flow
boundary layers
● There is still self-similarity in the profiles
● The main scaling parameter used in turbulent
*
boundary layer is the friction velocity, u
● The “universal” turbulent boundary layer profile
is expressed in terms of non-dimensional
+ +
velocity, u , and non-dimensional distance, y .
 Turbulent boundary layer profile
(a.k.a. “Law of the wall”)
Inner layer:
u + +
=u = y
u*
Overlap layer:
u + 1 +
* =u = ln y B
u 

where u *=   w / 
is the frictional velocity,
κ = 0.41 is the Von
Karman constant and
B is the log-law constant
(B = 5.0 for smooth wall)
 Different views of turbulent boundary layer
30 30

25 25
(a) (c)
20 20

15 15

u+
u+

10 10

5 5

0 0
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 0 100 200 300 400 500
y+ y+

30 30

25 25
(b) 20
(d)
20

15 15
u+

u+
10 10

5 5

0 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 20 40 60 80 100
y+ y+

Different views of the turbulent boundary layer: (a) log-log scale; (b) Linear scale,
whole layer shown; (c) and (d) closeups near the solid surface. Dashed lines indicate
boundaries betwen the viscous sublayer, overlap (logarithmic) and outer layer.
 Prandtl's turbulent boundary layer
analysis using integral momentum theory
1/7
Use simple 1/7 power law to
approximate velocity profile,    u
U turb
≈
y


=∫   [ 1−  ] dy= 

 1/7 1/7
y y 7
momentum thickness,   72
0

−1/6
4
and experimental fit for 10 <Reδ<10 7 c f ≈0.02 Re

to estimate τw and cf from the integral momentum relations

2 d d
 w x=U and c f =2
dx dx

−1/6
c f =0.02 Re
 =2  
d 7
dx 72
 ⇒ Re≈0.16 Re
6/7
x
 0.16
or ≈ 1/7
x Re x
Results for smooth and rough plate
0.027 c f  U 2 0.0135  1/7 6/7 U 13/7 0.031 7
c f = 1 /7 ;  w= = ; C D= 1/7 = c f L
Re x 2 x 1/7
Re L 6

[ ]
 1/7
y 1 7 
*
 =∫
*
1− dy=  ; =  ; H = =1.3
0
 8 72 

For rough plate, with the absolute roughness, ε, the friction

and drag coefficient can be expressed as

−2.5 −2.5


c f ≈ 2.871.58 log
x
  ; 
C D ≈ 1.891.62 log
L
 
similar to the expression for pipe flow.
Graphic summary for laminar and turbulent
flat plate boundary layers

Velocity profiles for laminar Drag coefficient for flat plate boundary
and turbulent boundary layer layers over smooth and rough surfaces
Near the wall, boundary layers are similar
for different flows

Drag coefficient for flat plate boundary Comparison with friction coefficient in
layers over smooth and rough surfaces pipes (Moody Chart)