Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T04:27:40.879Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Free motion of a body in a boundary layer or channel flow

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2017

Frank T. Smith
Frank T. Smith*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, University College London, London WC1E 6BT, UK
*
†Email address for correspondence: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Coupling is considered between fluid flow and a freely moving body shorter than the development length in an oncoming boundary layer or channel flow but longer than the flow thickness. The body lies within the core of the flow. The coupling occurs between the inviscid-dominated displacement and the viscous–inviscid pressure, the latter acting to move the body. This interaction can be unstable. It is found however that three factors serve to stabilise the interaction as each one alters the decisive balance of angular momentum. One is a 10 % shift forward in the position of the centre of mass. The second is a degree of flexibility in the body shape by means of its response to the induced pressure force. Third is a slight streamwise movement of the body which is sufficient to modify the viscous–inviscid pressure response and again produce stabilisation. The effects are largely independent of the lateral position of the body.

JFM classification

Biological Fluid Dynamics: Biomedical flows Flow Control: Instability control Biological Fluid Dynamics: Swimming/flying
Type
Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 813 , 25 February 2017 , pp. 279 - 300
Check for updates
Copyright
© 2017 Cambridge University Press 

Access options

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

References

Carpenter, P. W. & Garrad, A. D. 1985 The hydrodynamic stability of flow over Kramer-type compliant surfaces. Part I. Tollmien–Schlichting instabilities. J. Fluid Mech. 165, 465–510.Google Scholar
Cox, R. G. & Mason, S. G. 1971 Suspended particles in fluid flow through tubes. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 3, 291–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einav, S. & Lee, S. L. 1973 Particles migration in laminar boundary layer flow. Intl J. Multiphase Flow 1, 73–88.Google Scholar
Frank, M., Anderson, D., Weeks, E. R. & Morris, J. F. 2003 Particle migration in pressure-driven flow of a Brownian suspension. J. Fluid Mech. 493, 363–378.Google Scholar
Gavze, E. & Shapiro, M. 1997 Particles in a shear flow near a solid wall: effect of nonsphericity on forces and velocities. Intl J. Multiphase Flow 23, 155–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gent, R. W., Dart, N. P. & Cansdale, J. T. 2000 Aircraft icing. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A 358, 2873–2911.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guneratne, J. C. & Pedley, T. J. 2006 High-Reynolds-number steady flow in a collapsible channel. J. Fluid Mech. 569, 151–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, G. R. 1964 On the mechanics of transition produced by particles passing through an initially laminar boundary layer and estimated effect on the performance of X-21 aircraft. Northrop Corp. N79-70656.Google Scholar
Kishori, N. & Gu, S. 2010 Wall effects on flow and drag phenomena of spheroid particles at moderate Reynolds numbers. Ind. Engng Chem. Res. 49, 9486–9495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loisel, V., Abbas, M., Masbernat, O. & Climen, E. 2013 The effect of neutrally buoyant finite-size particles on channel flows in the laminar-turbulent transition regime. Phys. Fluids 25 (12), 123304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loth, E. & Dorgan, A. J. 2009 An equation of motion for particles of finite Reynolds number and size. Environ. Fluid Mech. 9, 187–206.Google Scholar
Muller, K., Fedosov, D. A. & Gompper, G. 2014 Margination of micro- and nano-particles in blood flow and its effects on drug delivery. Sci. Rep. 4, 4871.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petrie, H. L., Morris, P. J., Bajwa, A. R. & Vincent, D. C.1993 Transition induced by fixed and freely convecting spherical particles in laminar boundary layers, Tech. Rep. TR93-07, Pennsylvania State University, USA.Google Scholar
Poesio, P., Ooms, G., Cate, A. T. & Hunt, J. C. R. 2006 Interaction and collisions between particles in a linear shear flow near a wall at low Reynolds number. J. Fluid Mech. 555, 113–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portela, L. M., Cota, P. & Oliemans, R. V. A. 2002 Numerical study of the near-wall behaviour of particles in turbulent pipe flows. Powder Technol. 125, 149–157.Google Scholar
Pruessner, L. & Smith, F. T. 2015 Enhanced effects from tiny flexible in-wall blips and shear flow. J. Fluid Mech. 772, 16–41.Google Scholar
Purvis, R. & Smith, F. T. 2016 Improving aircraft safety in icing conditions. In UK Success Stories in Industrial Mathematics (ed. Aston, P. A., Mulholland, A. J. & Tate, K. M. M.), pp. 145–154. Springer.Google Scholar
Schmidt, C. & Young, T. M. 2009 The impact of freely suspended particles on laminar boundary layers. In AIAA Aerosp. Sci. Mtg 5–8 Jan, Orlando, Florida, USA, AIAA.Google Scholar
Schmidt, C., Young, T. & Benard, E. 2010 The effect of a particle travelling through a laminar boundary layer on transition. IUTAM 09 18, 561–564.Google Scholar
Semwogerere, D. & Weeks, E. R. 2008 Shear-induced particle migration in binary colloidal suspensions. Phys. Fluids 20 (4), 043306.Google Scholar
Sinclair, M., Lee, J., Schuster, A., Chiribi, A., Van Den Wijngaard, J., Van Horssen, P., Siebes, M., Spaan, J. A. E., Nagel, E. & Smith, N. P. 2015 Microsphere skimming in the porcine coronary arteries: implications for flow quantification. Microvasc. Res. 100, 59–70.Google Scholar
Smith, F. T. 1973 Laminar flow over a small hump on a flat plate. J. Fluid Mech. 57, 803–824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, F. T. 1976 Flow through constricted or dilated pipes and channels: part 2. Q. J. Mech. Appl. Maths 29, 365–376.Google Scholar
Smith, F. T. 1977 Upstream interactions in channel flows. J. Fluid Mech. 79, 631–655.Google Scholar
Smith, F. T. 1984 Concerning upstream influence in separating boundary layers and downstream influence in channel flow. Q. J. Mech. Appl. Maths 37, 389–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, F. T. & Daniels, P. G. 1981 Removal of Goldstein’s singularity at separation in flow past obstacles in wall layers. J. Fluid Mech. 110, 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, F. T. & Jones, M. A. 2000 One-to-few and one-to-many branching tube flows. J. Fluid Mech. 423, 1–31.Google Scholar
Smith, F. T. & Ellis, A. S. 2010 On interaction between falling bodies and the surrounding fluid. Mathematika 56, 140–168.Google Scholar
Smith, F. T. & Johnson, E. R. 2016 Movement of a finite body in channel flow. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 472 (2191), 20160164.Google ScholarPubMed
Stewartson, K. 1970 On laminar boundary layers near corners. Q. J. Mech. Appl. Maths 23, 137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sychev, V. V. 1972 Concerning laminar separation. Izv. Akad. Nauk. SSSR, Mekh. Zhidk Gaza 3, 47–59.Google Scholar
Wang, J. & Levy, E. K. 2006 Particle behavior in the turbulent boundary layer of a dilute gas-particle flow past a flat plate. Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 30, 473–483.Google Scholar
White, A. H. & Smith, F. T. 2012 Wall shape effects on multiphase flow in channels. Theor. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 26, 339–360.Google Scholar
Wilson, P. L. & Smith, F. T. 2013 Body-rock or liftoff in flow. J. Fluid Mech. 735, 91–119.Google Scholar