Is There a Limit to Turbulence in Fluid Dynamics?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Aero51
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limit Turbulence
AI Thread Summary
Turbulence in fluid dynamics does not have a definitive limit, as it can become increasingly chaotic without a discernible pattern. The complexity of modeling turbulence is highlighted by the challenges in accurately resolving the Kolmogorov scale, which requires extremely fine mesh that is often impractical even for supercomputers. While the Reynolds number is commonly used to characterize flow regimes, the onset of turbulence is influenced by various factors beyond just this number, such as surface roughness and external disturbances. Research has shown that turbulence can occur at very high Reynolds numbers, with some regimes reaching values as high as 10^12 in stellar interiors. Overall, turbulence remains a complex phenomenon that continues to challenge researchers in fluid dynamics.
Aero51
Messages
545
Reaction score
10
Just out of curiosity, is there a limit to how turbulent a flow can become? In otherwords, turbulence develop that is so chaotic that no discernible pattern/path can be found in the flow? Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Why should there be a limit to "how turbulent a flow can become"? It is nearly impossible now to model simple turbulence even with powerful supercomputers, so how would we even measure extreme chaos?
 
In theory, no. In fact, at extremely higher Reynolds numbers, a flow can re-laminarize (e.g. the Princeton Superpipe).

Otherwise, in a normal situation, turbulence will always involve energy cascades from large flow-scale eddies all the way down to those of the Kolmogorov scale.

Therein lies the problem in performing a DNS of a full-scale turbulent flow. To accurately resolve the Kolmogorov scale in a given flow field, the mesh must be so fine that the problems often cannot be solved in an economically feasible length of time, even on supercomputers.
 
Aero51 said:
Just out of curiosity, is there a limit to how turbulent a flow can become? In otherwords, turbulence develop that is so chaotic that no discernible pattern/path can be found in the flow? Thanks.

Turbulence is like pornography- you know it when you see it. Often, laminar/turbulent flow can be parametrized by the Reynolds number, with turbulent flow indicated around a Reynolds number Re ~ 10000. At the low end, the onset of turbulence, there appears to be a fairly well-defined transition region. However, AFAIK, there does not appear to be anything fundamentally new regardless of how large the Reynolds number is: Russel Donnelly's group has done a lot of work generating flow regimes as high as Re ~ 10^7- 10^9, and IIRC stellar interiors can reach Re ~ 10^12.
 
FWIW, turbulence onset as a function of Reynolds number is only well-defined for pipe flow and perhaps a tiny handful of others. I don't know where 10000 was found, but for things such as airplane wings or automobiles (in the absence of separation), the transition Reynolds number is often much, much higher; well over 10^6. The problem is that the onset o turbulence is dependent on more than just the Reynolds number, notably the free-stream disturbances (sound, turbulence, temperature), surface temperature and surface roughness.
 
Hi there, im studying nanoscience at the university in Basel. Today I looked at the topic of intertial and non-inertial reference frames and the existence of fictitious forces. I understand that you call forces real in physics if they appear in interplay. Meaning that a force is real when there is the "actio" partner to the "reactio" partner. If this condition is not satisfied the force is not real. I also understand that if you specifically look at non-inertial reference frames you can...
I have recently been really interested in the derivation of Hamiltons Principle. On my research I found that with the term ##m \cdot \frac{d}{dt} (\frac{dr}{dt} \cdot \delta r) = 0## (1) one may derivate ##\delta \int (T - V) dt = 0## (2). The derivation itself I understood quiet good, but what I don't understand is where the equation (1) came from, because in my research it was just given and not derived from anywhere. Does anybody know where (1) comes from or why from it the...
Back
Top