Solution of unsteady linearized potential flow PDE

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on solving a linearized potential flow equation related to potential flow over an oscillating plate, as presented in Fung's publication. The user seeks clarification on deriving specific solutions from the equations of motion and boundary conditions outlined in the paper. They explore the potential utility of Duhamel's principle for addressing non-homogeneous PDEs and express uncertainty regarding the correlation between Fourier constants and wave numbers. Progress has been made towards equations (14) and (15), but further guidance on the relationships between variables is needed. The conversation emphasizes the complexity of the mathematical transformations involved in reaching the desired solutions.
MarkoA
Messages
12
Reaction score
1
Hi,

I have a problem following the solution of a linearized potential flow equation in a publication by Fung.

The problem describes potential flow over an oscillating plate. A boundary layer is approximated by defining a subsonic layer over the panel and supersonic flow above the subsonic flow. From the equation of motion (1) and (2) in combination with a standing wave condition of the wall (8) and traveling wave of the perturbations (9) and (10) it seems to be easy to get the solutions (12) and (13).

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/20358584/fung1.png
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/20358584/fung2.png

Can anyobody give me hint of how to get to this solution? The paper is the following:
[PLAIN]http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/3.1661[/PLAIN]
http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/3.1661

Many thanks in advance!

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/20358584/fung3.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
When I am confronted with "it's easy to see that..." I usually first try substituting the answer into the expression and seeing what happens- sometimes there's an oddball change of variables or trig identity involved.
 
  • Like
Likes MarkoA
I don't know. This doesn't help. What could he have done? I've heard that Duhamel's principle could be an approach of solving non-homogenious PDEs like the wave equation. Could the solution have something to do with this approach?

Substituting (13) in (2) gives:
\begin{equation} [-\frac{1}{a_{\delta}^2} \omega^2 - \frac{2M_{\delta}}{a_{\delta}} \alpha_{\nu}\omega + \beta_{\delta}^2\alpha_{\nu}^2 + \zeta_{\delta}^2] \cdot e^{i(\omega t + \alpha_{\nu} x)} \cdot [C_{\nu} sin(\zeta_{\nu}y ) + D_{\nu} cos(\zeta_{\nu}y) ] = 0 \end{equation}
 
Last edited:
Oh... the substitution was absolutely wrong. I need to find the correlation between the potential and z..
 
I made some progress to get equation (14) and (15). Not sure if I can already corellate the fourer constant alpha with the wave number.

<br /> The equation of motion:<br /> \begin{equation}<br /> \frac{1}{a^2}\frac{\partial^2\phi}{\partial t^2} + \frac{2M}{a} \frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial x \partial t} + \overline{\beta}^2 \frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial x^2} = \frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial y^2}<br /> \label{eq:01}<br /> \end{equation}<br /> The potential must oscillate harmonically:<br /> \begin{equation}<br /> \phi = \Psi(x,y)e^{i\omega t}<br /> \label{eq:02}<br /> \end{equation}<br /> This yields:<br /> \begin{equation}<br /> \Big(\frac{i\omega}{a}\Big)^2\Psi + 2i\frac{\omega M}{a} \frac{\partial \Psi}{\partial x} + \overline{\beta}^2 \frac{\partial^2 \Psi}{\partial x^2} = \frac{\partial^2 \Psi}{\partial y^2}<br /> \label{eq:03}<br /> \end{equation}<br /> A double Fourier transformation in x and y:<br /> \begin{equation}<br /> \Psi^* = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} e^{-i(\gamma y + \alpha x)} \Psi(x,y) dx dy<br /> \label{eq:04}<br /> \end{equation}<br /> If this Fourier transformation is applied to all terms of Eq.~(\ref{eq:03}) then $\Phi^*$ cancels out and (\ref{eq:03}) can be written as:<br /> \begin{equation}<br /> \frac{\omega^2}{a^2} + 2 \frac{\omega M}{a} \alpha + \overline{\beta}^2 \alpha^2 = \gamma^2<br /> \end{equation}<br /> This is equation (14) in the publication from Fung. The same approach for Fungs equation (2) yields (15). Can I already assume that $\gamma$ is $\gamma_{\nu}$ and $\alpha$ is $\alpha_{\nu}$?<br />
 
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