Anderson-98101 book December 5, 2009 15:46
1022 PA R T 4 Viscous Flow
Re∞ , turbulent skin friction is higher than laminar; also, the slopes of the turbulent
curves are smaller than the slopes of the laminar curves—a graphic comparison of
the Re−1/5 variation in contrast to the laminar Re−1/2 variation. Note that the effect
of increasing M∞ is to reduce C f at constant Re and that this effect is stronger on
the turbulent flow results. Indeed, C f for the turbulent results decreases by almost
an order of magnitude (at the higher values of Re∞ ) when M∞ is increased from
0 to 10. For the laminar flow, the decrease in C f as M∞ is increased though the
same Mach number range is far less pronounced.
19.2.1 Reference Temperature Method for Turbulent Flow
The reference temperature method discussed in Section 18.4 for laminar boundary
layers can be applied to turbulent boundary layers as well. With the reference
temperature T ∗ given by Equation (18.53), the incompressible turbulent flat plate
result for C f given by Equation (19.2) can be modified for compressible turbulent
flow as
0.074
C ∗f = (19.3)
(Re∗c )1/5
Df
where C ∗f = (19.4)
ρ ue S
1 ∗ 2
2
E X A MPLE 19.1
Consider the same flat plate under the same external flow conditions given in Example 18.1.
Calculate the friction drag on the plate assuming a turbulent boundary layer for a freestream
velocity of (a) 100 m/s, and (b) 1000 m/s.
■ Solution
(a) From Example 18.1a, Rec = 1.36 × 107 . Hence, from Equation (19.2)
0.074 0.074 0.074
Cf = = = = 2.77 × 10−3
(Rec )1/5 (1.36 × 10 )
7 1/5 26.71
Also from Example 18.1, we have ρ∞ = 1.22 kg/m3 and S = 40 m2 . Hence, for one side
of the plate,
2
D f = 12 ρ∞ V∞ SC f = 12 (1.22)(100)2 (40)(2.77 × 10−3 ) = 675.9 N
The total friction drag taking into account both sides of the plate is
D = 2D f = 2(675.9) = 1352 N
Comparing this result for turbulent flow with the laminar result in Example 1.81a, we
have
Dturbulent 1352
= = 7.7
Dlaminar 175.6
Anderson-98101 book December 5, 2009 15:46
CHAPTER 19 Turbulent Boundary Layers 1023
Turbulent flow causes a factor of 7.7 increase in friction drag compared to the laminar flow.
You can easily see why the understanding of, and prediction of, turbulent flow, especially
the prediction of when the flow will transist from laminar to turbulent flow, is so important.
(b) For V∞ = 1000 m/s, from Example 18.1b, Rec = 1.36 × 108 , and M∞ = 2.94.
From Figure 19.1, we have
C f = 1.34 × 10−3
Hence, 2
D f = 12 ρ∞ V∞ SC f = 12 (1.22)(1000)2 (40)(1.34 × 10−3 ) = 32,700 N.
The total friction drag is
D = 2(32,700) = 65,400 N
Again, comparing this result with that from Example 18.1b, we have
Dturbulent 65,400
= = 13
Dlaminar 5026
Note that, at the higher Mach number of 2.92, turbulence increased the drag by a factor of
13, whereas for the incompressible case, the increase was 7.7, a smaller amount. The differ-
ence between the drag for laminar and turbulent flow is more pronounced at higher speeds.
EXAM PLE 19.2
Repeat Example 19.1b, except using the reference temperature method. Assume the plate
has an adiabatic wall.
■ Solution
We draw on the results calculated in Example 18.2. The recovery factor for a turbulent
flow is slightly different than that for a laminar flow. However, we will not account for
that difference, and we will assume that the reference temperature for this case is the same
as given in Example 18.2. Hence, from Example 18.2, we have
Re∗c = 3.754 × 107 and ρ ∗ = 0.574 kg/m3
From Equation (19.3) we have
0.074 0.074
C ∗f = ∗ = = 2.26 × 10−3
(Rec ) 1/5 (3.754 × 107 )1/5
From Equation (19.4),
D f = 12 ρ ∗ u 2e SC ∗f = 12 (0.574)(1000)2 (40)(2.26 × 10−3 ) = 25,945 N
Hence, D = 2(25,945) = 51,890 N
Comparing this answer with that obtained in Example 19.1b, we find a 20 percent dis-
crepancy between the two methods of calculations. This is not surprising. It simply points
out the great uncertainty in making calculations of turbulent skin friction.