Second derivative of friction force question

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the confusion regarding the second derivative of the friction force in boundary layer theory. The friction force per unit volume is correctly expressed as the partial derivative of shear stress, not force, leading to the equation involving the second derivative of velocity. The relationship between the first and second derivatives of velocity is clarified, showing that the second derivative is proportional to the freestream velocity divided by the square of the boundary layer thickness. The participants confirm that the interpretation of the second derivative aligns with the established equations in fluid dynamics. This understanding is essential for accurately analyzing boundary layer behavior.
fahraynk
Messages
185
Reaction score
6
I'm studying boundary layers. I am confused by what I am reading in this book.

The book says the friction force (F) per unit volume = $$\frac{dF}{dy}=\mu\frac{d^2U}{dy^2}$$
They say $$\frac{dU}{dy}=\frac{U_\infty}{\delta}$$

This makes sense to me, delta is the thickness in the y direction, and the velocity is 0 at the airfoil (or whatever object) and it equals the freestream velocity after the boundary thickness delta. so du/dy being proportional to the free stream velocity divided by the thickness makes sense.
But then they say this : $$\frac{d^2U}{dy^2} =\mu\frac{U_\infty}{\delta^2}$$

Can someone explain why the second derivative is proportional to delta^2 ?
Is it that, delta represents the thickness y, and so the second derivative of 1/y = -1/y^2, and we just ignore the negative?
 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-4-29_17-46-23.png
    upload_2017-4-29_17-46-23.png
    12.4 KB · Views: 503
Physics news on Phys.org
Well for one, friction force per unit volume is not ##dF/dy## as you have written it. It is ##\partial \tau/\partial y##. The difference is important, because ##F## is a force, and ##\tau## is a stress. The units don't work out if you use ##F##.

So then the friction force per unit volume is
\dfrac{\partial \tau}{\partial y} = \mu\dfrac{\partial^2 u}{\partial y^2}.
So, if you've already come to terms with the fact that
\dfrac{\partial u}{\partial y} \sim \dfrac{U_{\infty}}{\delta},
Then the same logic leads to
\dfrac{\partial \tau}{\partial y} = \mu\dfrac{\partial}{\partial y}\left(\dfrac{\partial u}{\partial y}\right) \sim \mu\dfrac{\partial}{\partial y}\left(\dfrac{U_{\infty}}{\delta}\right) \sim \mu\dfrac{U_{\infty}}{\delta^2}.
 
  • Like
Likes fahraynk
Hi thank you for replying.

Ah okay, I think I figured it out.
I see how $$\frac{\partial u}{\partial y} = \frac{U\infty}{\delta}$$ because... it U=0 at the boundary and U_infty after a distance delta, so it should be proportional.

So I think :
$$\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial y^2} = \frac{\frac{\partial u}{\partial y}_\infty}{\delta} = \frac{U\infty}{\delta^2}$$ Or basically du/dt/delta = u_infty/delta^2
Is this the correct interpretation?
 
You got it.
 
  • Like
Likes fahraynk
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top