How Does Inviscid Flow Behave Around a Submerged Cone?

  • Thread starter Thread starter member 428835
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cone Flow
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the behavior of inviscid flow around a submerged cone, particularly focusing on the characteristics of streamlines in this flow scenario. Participants explore theoretical aspects, propose models, and seek clarification on various flow properties, including uniformity and streamline behavior at different stations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants inquire about the uniformity of flow at station 2 and whether the flow would be faster at the exit port.
  • There are claims that streamlines outside the cone will wrap around it and that streamlines at station 2 will be flat, both inside and outside the cone.
  • Participants suggest that streamlines will condense before station 2 and exit closer together behind the exit port, forming a jet-like flow.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about what causes streamlines to separate after station 2.
  • There is a discussion on whether the stream function satisfies Laplace's equation for inviscid flow, with some asserting it does under the assumption of incompressibility.
  • Participants explore the implications of the stream function becoming parallel at large distances and its relation to equal spacing of streamlines.
  • One participant draws parallels between the flow around the cone and airflow around aircraft wings, suggesting that existing studies on wing flow could inform the discussion.
  • There are mentions of software available for drawing idealized flow streamline patterns and the historical context of sketching flow patterns in engineering design.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the behavior of streamlines, with no clear consensus on several aspects, such as the uniformity of flow at station 2 and the reasons for streamline separation downstream. The discussion remains unresolved on these points.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the accuracy of sketched flow patterns may vary depending on the angle of attack of the submerged cone, and that the flow patterns could differ under various conditions. There are also references to the limitations of simplified models compared to full computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analyses.

member 428835
Hi PF!

Some classmates and I were talking about the streamlines around a submerged cone being pulled at a velocity ##V##. The picture is attached. Can someone shed some light on the streamlines of this flow, assuming it is inviscid? I take a frame of reference that moves with the cone.

Specifically, would the flow at station 2 be uniform vertically, or would the flow be faster at the exit port forever? Would the streamline profiles be straight upon exit or would they bend a little?

Any insight is greatly appreciated!
 

Attachments

  • Cone.png
    Cone.png
    28 KB · Views: 576
Engineering news on Phys.org
What do you think the streamline pattern would look like?
 
Chestermiller said:
What do you think the streamline pattern would look like?
I think the streamlines outside ##A_1## will wrap around the cone and at station 2 all be flat. I think the streamlines in the cone, at station 2, will all be flat too. Before station 2 and in the cone I think the streamlines will adhere to the shape of the wall and condense. I think these streamlines will exit condensed relative to those outside the cone. Since the flow is inviscid, I think streamlines beyond station 2 directly behind ##A_2## will always be closer together than those outside ##A_2##. So a sort of jet.
 
joshmccraney said:
I think the streamlines outside ##A_1## will wrap around the cone and at station 2 all be flat. I think the streamlines in the cone, at station 2, will all be flat too. Before station 2 and in the cone I think the streamlines will adhere to the shape of the wall and condense. I think these streamlines will exit condensed relative to those outside the cone. Since the flow is inviscid, I think streamlines beyond station 2 directly behind ##A_2## will always be closer together than those outside ##A_2##. So a sort of jet.
Any chance of a diagram?
 
Chestermiller said:
Any chance of a diagram?
Totally, I've attached one. I've tried drawing all the streamlines equidistant before station 1. Notice after station 2 they are closer together behind ##A_2## then before. Do you agree with this sketch?
 

Attachments

  • IMG_3994.JPG
    IMG_3994.JPG
    58.1 KB · Views: 555
joshmccraney said:
Totally, I've attached one. I've tried drawing all the streamlines equidistant before station 1. Notice after station 2 they are closer together behind ##A_2## then before. Do you agree with this sketch?
I think that further downstream (after station 2), they will become equidistant again.
 
Chestermiller said:
I think that further downstream (after station 2), they will become equidistant again.

What would cause the streamlines to separate after station 2?
 
Do you believe that the stream function satisfies Laplace's equation for inviscid flow?

What causes the stream lines to even out again downstream of flow over a cylinder?
 
Chestermiller said:
Do you believe that the stream function satisfies Laplace's equation for inviscid flow?
I believe the streamfunction does provided the flow is also incompressible (which we assume it is) so yes, I believe the streamfunction ##\psi## follows ##\nabla^2\psi=0##.

Chestermiller said:
What causes the stream lines to even out again downstream of flow over a cylinder?
Yea, I'm not sure about this. Any help?

Also, and I know this is off topic a little, but when deriving Bernoulli's equation from Navier Stokes, how do we know it is only valid along a streamline? At the very end of my derivation, assuming Newtonian, incompressible, inviscid, irrotational flow I have ##\nabla(\partial_t \phi + |\vec{u}|^2/2+p/\rho + g z) = \vec{0} \implies \partial_t \phi + |\vec{u}|^2/2+p/\rho + g z = const.## where I think the constant implies something about which streamline you're on. Also, ##\vec{u}=\nabla \phi##.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
joshmccraney said:
I believe the streamfunction does provided the flow is also incompressible (which we assume it is) so yes, I believe the streamfunction ##\psi## follows ##\nabla^2\psi=0##.
Well, if the stream function satisfies Laplace's equation and the streamlines become parallel at large x, then ##\partial \psi /\partial x=0##. Therefore, we are left with ##\partial^2\psi /\partial y^2=0##. That automatically gives equal streamfunction spacing.
Yea, I'm not sure about this. Any help?
Yeah, me neither. It certainly comes out the mathematics (i.e., the vorticity is zero), but it is certainly hard to track down from the Euler equations using physical reasoning. I don't know whether it is worth it spending time trying to do this.
Also, and I know this is off topic a little, but when deriving Bernoulli's equation from Navier Stokes, how do we know it is only valid along a streamline? At the very end of my derivation, assuming Newtonian, incompressible, inviscid, irrotational flow I have ##\nabla(\partial_t \phi + |\vec{u}|^2/2+p/\rho + g z) = \vec{0} \implies \partial_t \phi + |\vec{u}|^2/2+p/\rho + g z = const.## where I think the constant implies something about which streamline you're on. Also, ##\vec{u}=\nabla \phi##.
Can you please submit this as a separate thread.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: member 428835
  • #11
Chestermiller said:
Well, if the stream function satisfies Laplace's equation and the streamlines become parallel at large x, then ##\partial \psi /\partial x=0##. Therefore, we are left with ##\partial^2\psi /\partial y^2=0##. That automatically gives equal streamfunction spacing.

Yeah, me neither. It certainly comes out the mathematics (i.e., the vorticity is zero), but it is certainly hard to track down from the Euler equations using physical reasoning. I don't know whether it is worth it spending time trying to do this.
Thanks a ton! This makes sense.
 
  • #12
(1) If you look at a simplified version of this problem translated into 2D then the sloping surfaces look very similar to aircraft wings - one normal and one inverted .

There have been many studies of the air flow around wings - both for proper wings profiles and for flat plates . There have also been studies about water flow around hydrofoils though these are harder to find . For water flow and for pseudo incompressible flow of air the flow patterns are similar at lower speeds .

Using information from these sources it should be possible to sketch a reasonable 2D approximation to the flow patterns around the sloping surfaces provided that the two surfaces are well separated .

It may also be possible to sketch an approximation of the full axisymmetric flow pattern by sweeping the 2D pattern for anyone surface around the central axis .

Flow patterns can be expected to alter depending on the angle of attack of the sloping surface . Accuracy of sketched flow patterns would probably be quite good for low angles of attack and less good for high angles of attack .

(2) Studies have also been done regarding flow of air through a wind sock and flow of water through the draught tube of a submerged turbine . Interesting background reading .

(3) There is software available for drawing idealised flow streamline patterns . Drawing these patterns is much less computationally demanding than for full CFD analysis .

(4) Sketching flow patterns used to be one of the skills learned by young engine designers . Usually the flow net was sketched rather than just the streamlines .
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
18K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
11K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K