Journal of Engineering Mathematics

, Volume 57, Issue 3, pp 273–288 | Cite as

Midplane-symmetry breaking in the flow between two counter-rotating disks

Original Paper

Abstract

This paper considers the axisymmetric steady flow driven by exact counter rotation of two co-axial disks of finite radius. At the edges of the rotating disks one of three conditions is (typically) imposed: (i) zero velocity, corresponding to a stationary, impermeable, cylindrical shroud (ii) zero normal velocity and zero tangential fluid traction, corresponding to a (confined) free surface and (iii) an edge constraint that is consistent with a similarity solution of von Kármán form. The similarity solution is valid in an infinite geometry and possesses a pitchfork bifurcation that breaks the midplane symmetry at a critical Reynolds number. In this paper, similar bifurcations of the global (finite-domain) flow are sought and comparisons are made between the resulting bifurcation structure and that found for the similarity solution. The aim is to assess the validity of the nonlinear similarity solutions in finite domains and to explore the sensitivity of the solution structure to edge conditions that are implicitly neglected when assuming a self-similar flow. It is found that, whilst the symmetric similarity solution can be quantitatively useful for a range of boundary conditions, the bifurcated structure of the finite-domain flow is rather different for each boundary condition and bears little resemblance to the self-similar flow.

Keywords

Rotating disk Bifurcation Similarity solution 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Batchelor GK (1951) Note on a class of solutions of the Navier–Stokes equations representing steady rotationally- symmetric flow. Q J Mech Appl Math 4:29–41MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zandbergen PJ, Dijkstra D (1987) Von Kármán swirling flows. Ann Rev Fluid Mech 19:465–491CrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Berman AS (1953) Laminar flow in channels with porous walls. J Appl Phys 24:1232–1235MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brady JF, Acrivos A (1981) Steady flow in a channel or tube with an accelerating surface velocity. An exact solution to the Navier–Stokes equations. J Fluid Mech 112:127–150MATHCrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zaturska MB, Banks WHH (2003) New solutions for flow in a channel with porous walls and/or non-rigid walls. Fluid Dyn Res 33:57–71MATHCrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hewitt RE, Duck PW, Al-Azhari M (2003) Extensions to three-dimensional flow in a porous channel. Fluid Dyn Res 33:17–39MATHCrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Terrill RM (1982) An exact solution for flow in a porous pipe. Z Angew Math Phys 22:547–552CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Riley N, Drazin PG (2006) The Navier–Stokes equations: A classification of flows and exact solutions (London Mathematical Society Lecture Note Series 334). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge EnglandMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brady JF, Durlofsky L (1987) On rotating disk flow. J Fluid Mech 175:363–394CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gauthier G, Gondret P, Moisy F, Rabaud M (2002) Instabilities in the flow between co- and counter-rotating disks. J Fluid Mech 473:1–21MATHCrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nore C, Tartar M, Daube O, Tuckerman LS (2004) Survey of instability thresholds of flow between exactly counter- rotating disks. J Fluid Mech 511:45–65MATHCrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Witkowski LM, Delbende I, Walker JS, Le Quéré P (2006) Axisymmetric stability of the flow between two exactly counter-rotating disks with large aspect ratio. J Fluid Mech 546:193–202MATHCrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gresho PM, Sani RL (1998) Incompressible flow and the finite element method. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., Chichester EnglandMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cliffe KA (1983) Numerical calculations of two-cell and single-cell Taylor flows. J Fluid Mech 135:219–233MATHCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Harriott GM, Brown RA (1984) Flow in differentially rotated cylindrical drop at moderate Reynolds number. J Fluid Mech 144:403–418MATHCrossRefADSGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Heil M, Hazel AL (2006) oomph-lib—An object-oriented multi-physics finite-element library. In: Schafer M, Bungartz H-J (eds) Fluid–structure interaction. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cliffe KA (1996) ENTWIFE (Release 6.3) Reference Manual. AEAT-0823.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hewitt RE, Duck PW (2000) Non-axisymmetric rotating disk flows: nonlinear travelling-wave states. J Fluid Mech 413:287–316MATHCrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Banks WHH, Drazin PG, Zaturska MB (1988) On perturbations to Jeffery–Hamel flow. J Fluid Mech 186:559–581MATHCrossRefADSMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of MathematicsThe University of ManchesterManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations