Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T02:17:43.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The initial-value problem for three-dimensional disturbances in plane Poiseuille flow of helium II

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2008

LARS B. BERGSTRÖM
LARS B. BERGSTRÖM*
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, Luleå University of Technology, SE-971 87 Luleå, Sweden
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The time development of small three-dimensional disturbances in plane Poiseuille flow of helium II is considered. The study is conducted by considering the interaction of a normal fluid field and a superfluid field. The interaction is caused by a mutual friction forcing between the two flow fields. Specifically, the stability of the normal fluid affected by the mutual forcing is considered. Compared to the ordinary fluid case where the mutual forcing is not present, the presence of the mutual forcing implies a substantial increase of the transient growth of the disturbances. The increase of the transient growth occurs because the mutual forcing reduces the damping of the disturbances. The phase of transient growth becomes thereby more prolonged and higher levels of amplification are reached. There is also a minor effect on the transient growth caused by the modification of the mean flow owing to the mutual forcing. The strongest transient growth occurs for streamwise elongated disturbances, i.e. disturbances with streamwise wavenumber α = 0. When α increases beyond zero, the transient amplification quickly becomes reduced. Striking differences compared to the ordinary fluid case are that the largest transient amplification does not occur when the spanwise wavenumber (β) is close to two and that the peak level of the disturbance energy density amplification does not depend on the square of the Reynolds number.

Type
Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 598 , 10 March 2008 , pp. 227 - 244
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Barenghi, C. F., Donnelly, R. J. & Vinen, W. F. 1983 Friction on quantized vortices in helium II. A review. J. Low Temp. Phys. 52, 189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barenghi, C. F., Samuels, D. C., Bauer, G. H. & Donnelly, R. J. 1997 Superfluid vortex lines in a model of turbulent flow. Phys. Fluids 9, 2631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergström, L. 1993 Optimal growth of small disturbances in pipe Poiseuille flow. Phys. Fluids A 5, 2710–2720.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergström, L. 1995 Transient properties of a developing laminar disturbance in pipe Poiseuille flow. Eur. J. Mech. B Fluids 14, 601.Google Scholar
Bergström, L. B. 2003 a The effect of the Earth's rotation on the transient amplification of disturbances in pipe flow. Phys. Fluids 15, 3028–3035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergström, L. B. 2003 b Transient growth of small disturbances in a Jeffrey fluid flowing through a pipe. Fluid Dyn. Res. 32, 29–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergström, L. B. 2005 Nonmodal growth of three-dimensional disturbances on plane Couette–Poiseuille flows. Phys. Fluids 17, 014105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, K. M. & Farrell, B. F. 1992 Three-dimensional optimal perturbations in viscous shear flow. Phys. Fluids A 4 (8), 1637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, S. & White, C. M. 1928 An experimental study of the flow of water in pipes of rectangular section. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 119, 92–107.Google Scholar
Donnelly, R. J. 1991 Quantized vortices in helium II. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Farrell, B. F. 1988 Optimal excitation of perturbations in viscous shear flow. Phys. Fluids 31 (8), 2093–2102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Godfrey, S. P., Samuels, D. C. & Barenghi, C. F. 2001 Linear stability of laminar plane Poiseuille flow of helium II under a non-uniform mutual friction forcing. Phys. Fluids 13 (4), 983–990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gustavsson, L. H. 1991 Energy growth of three-dimensional disturbances in plane Poiseuille flow. J. Fluid Mech. 224, 241–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heisenberg, W. 1924 Uber stabilität und turbulenz von flussigkeitsströmen. Annln Phys., Lpz. (4) 74, 577–627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Herbert, T. 1976 Periodic secondary motions in a plane channel. Proc. 5th Intl Conf. Numer. Methods Fluid Dyn. (ed. van de Vooren, A. I. & Zandbergen, P. J.), pp. 235–240. Springer.Google Scholar
Kaskel, A. 1961 Experimental study of the stability of pipe flow. II. Development of disturbance generator. Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Tech. Rep. 32–138.Google Scholar
Klingmann, B. G. 1992 On transition due to three-dimensional disturbances in plane Poiseuille flow. J. Fluid Mech. 240, 167–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landahl, M. T. 1975 Wave breakdown and turbulence. SIAM J. Appl. Maths 28, 735–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landahl, M. T. 1980 A note on an algebraic instability of inviscid parallel shear flows. J. Fluid Mech. 98, 243–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lin, C. C. 1945 On the stability of two-dimensional parallel flows. Parts I–III. Q. Appl. Maths 3, 117–142, 218–234, 277–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, E. W. & Reshotko, E. 1997 Evidence for transient disturbance growth in a 1961 pipe-flow experiment. Phys. Fluids 9, 242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melotte, D. J. & Barenghi, C. F. 1998 Transition to normal fluid turbulence in helium II. Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 4181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meskyn, D. & Stuart, J. T. 1951 Stability of viscous motion between parallel planes of finite disturbances. Proc. R. Soc. Lond A 208, 517–526.Google Scholar
Morkovin, M. V. 1969 The many faces of transition. In Viscous Drag Reduction ed. Wells, C. S.) Plenum.Google Scholar
Orszag, S. A. 1971 Accurate solution of the Orr–Sommerfeld stability equation. J. Fluid Mech. 50, 689–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pekeris, C. L. & Scholler, B. 1971 Stability of plane Poiseuille flow to periodic disturbances of finite amplitude. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 68, 197–199, 1434–1435.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reddy, S. C. & Henningson, D. S. 1993 Energy growth in viscous channel flows. J. Fluid Mech. 252, 209–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, W. C. & Potter, M. C. 1967 Finite-amplitude instability of parallel shear flows. J. Fluid Mech. 27, 465–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuels, D. C. 1992 Velocity matching and Poiseuille pipe flow of superfluid helium. Phys. Rev. B 46, 11714.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schlichting, H. 1933 Berechnung der anfachung kleiner storungen bei der plattenstromung. Z. Angew. Math. Mech. 13, 171–174.Google Scholar
Schmid, P. J. & Henningson, D. S. 1994 Optimal energy density growth in Hagen–Poiseuille flow. J. Fluid Mech. 277, 197–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, P. J. & Henningson, D. S. 2001 Stability and Transition in Shear Flows. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, M. R., Donnelly, R. J., Goldenfeld, N. & Vinen, W. F. 1993 Decay of vorticity in homogeneous turbulence. Phys. Rev. Lett. 71, 2583.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Squire, H. B. 1933 On the stability of three-dimensional disturbances of viscous flow between parallel walls. Proc. R. Soc. Lond A 142, 621–628.Google Scholar
Stuart, J. T. 1960 On the nonlinear mechanics of wave disturbances in stable and unstable parallel flows. Part 1. J. Fluid Mech. 9, 353–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tollmien, W. 1929 Uber die entstehung der turbulenz. Nachr. Ges. Wiss. Göttingen Math.-phys K1, 21–44.Google Scholar
Watson, J. 1960 On the nonlinear mechanics of wave disturbances in stable and unstable parallel flows. Part 2. J. Fluid Mech. 9, 371–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar