Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Fluid turbulence has attracted the attention of physicists, mathe- laboratory flows. They are equally complex and the ‘‘solution’’
maticians, and engineers for over 100 years, yet it remains an of one will have direct ramifications for them all. Yet we still do
unsolved problem. The reasons for the difficulties are outlined and not have anywhere near a solution to any of these problems in
recent advances in describing its small-scale statistical structure are the sense, say, that we have a solution to the hydrogen atom or
described. Contrary to traditional notions, new experimental evi- to critical point phenomena. Feynman (3), writing in the 1960s
dence indicates that the small scales are anisotropic, reflecting the is still up to date: ‘‘Finally, there is a physical problem that is
overall character of the flow. The consequences of this finding with common to many fields, that is very old, and that has not been
regard to the long-held postulate of the universality of the small- solved . . . It is the analysis of circulating or turbulent fluids
scale turbulence structure are discussed. . . . The simplest form of the problem is to take a pipe that is very
long and push water through it at high speed. We ask: to push
a given amount of water through that pipe, how much pressure
T he great cloud paintings of Ruisdael and Magritte (Fig. 1)
beautifully express the way we characterize turbulence in
modern texts: it is irregular, has strong vorticity, causes rapid
is needed? No one can analyze it from first principles and the
properties of water. If the water flows very slowly, or if we use
mixing (a blob of dye would rapidly disperse in Ruisdael’s a thick goo like honey, then we can do it nicely. You will find that
turbulent waters), and is a multiscale phemonenon. Fig. 2, a in your textbook. What we really cannot do is deal with actual,
mural in a Greek restaurant near Fort Myers, FL, is unconvinc- wet water running through a pipe. That is the central problem
ing because it misses the vital multiscale characteristic. All which we ought to solve some day, and we have not.’’
eddies are the same size. If this were in fact the case, there would
be no turbulence problem. The essence of turbulence is its The Turbulence Problem
multiscale behavior. It is difficult to think of a physics problem that can apparently be
Because the largest length scales (ᐉ) are typically of the order so clearly stated that has evaded a solution for so long.
of 1 km in a cumulous cloud, and the fluctuating turbulent Why is the turbulence problem so difficult? The equation of
velocities (u) are of the order of meters per second, the clouds fluid motion, the Navier Stokes equation
in the pictures are extremely turbulent, indicating a highly mixed
state. This is characterized by the Reynolds number 1
⭸V兾⭸t ⫹ V䡠ⵜV ⫽ ⫺ ⵜp ⫹ ⵜ2V [2]
Re ' uᐉ兾 , [1]
is a nonlinear partial differential equation. As Feynman states,
which is the ratio of the inertial forces (which describe the f luid there are solutions to this equation for simple laminar flows, like
acceleration) to viscous forces (which inhibit the f luid mo- honey flowing down a plate, that occur at low Reynolds numbers.
tion). It is very high; of the order 108. (Here is the kinematic
But at high Reynolds numbers the essence of the problem lies in
viscosity of order 10⫺5 m2䡠s⫺1 in a cloud.) Yet what is striking
the nonlinearity. It is not possible to develop a perturbation
is the complexity of the structures. No two clouds are alike. We
theory around the linear part of the equation because the theory
wonder whether any universal characteristics are present. Can
has no small parameter: quadratic and higher-order terms are
the scientist generate high Reynolds number turbulence in the
the essential ingredients of the problem. Thus perturbation
laboratory in such a way that it reduces the complexity, yet
expansions are strongly divergent. In this regard the Navier
retains the essential ingredients of the high Reynolds number
Stokes equations are the most intractable of all of the field
turbulence?
equations we know, including those of general relativity. Osborn
When we set up an ideal turbulent flow in the laboratory, we
obtain images like that shown in Fig. 3 (1). This is a boundary Reynolds (4) realized the heart of the problem in the late
layer. A carefully controlled wind of constant mean velocity is nineteenth century. He decomposed the velocity component V
driven (by a fan) over a perfectly flat plate. The ‘‘no slip’’ into a mean (U) and a fluctuation (u), i.e., V ⫽ U ⫹ u. Thus for
condition (e.g., ref. 2) forces the air motion to be zero at the plate a waterfall U is its average speed and u are fluctuations of the
itself, thereby inducing a velocity gradient or shear in the flow. flow about this average; the jittering motion that a speck of dust
Unlike the situations of Fig. 1, here the boundary conditions are would undergo while being advected along by the water. [Even
carefully controlled. Yet the resulting picture appears to be just earlier Leonardo da Vinci, hinting at this decomposition (5),
as complex. Apparently, simplifying the boundary conditions likened turbulent flow to the way hair falls (the mean motion),
does not help us very much. It is difficult to reduce the and curls (the fluctuations), on the nape of a woman’s neck].
complexity of the turbulence much more than this, although Substituting U ⫹ u for V in Eq. 2 generates high-order terms for
slightly simpler flows can be contrived. the fluctuating components. These terms are generally of the
There are thousands of papers on turbulent boundary layers, same order as the lower-order ones. Engineers, who seek
and the subject is still a fertile research area. Boundary layers
occur on the surface of airplane wings, turbine blades, and the
This paper results from the Arthur M. Sackler Colloquium of the National Academy of
Earth. They affect the drag properties, as well as the dispersion Sciences, ‘‘Self-Organized Complexity in the Physical, Biological, and Social Sciences,’’ held
of pollution and the formation of clouds (which in the Magritte March 23–24, 2001, at the Arnold and Mabel Beckman Center of the National Academies
picture are sitting atop the planetary boundary layer). Pipe of Science and Engineering in Irvine, CA.
flows, jets, wakes, and convection in a box are other standard Abbreviation: pdf, probability density function.
through-put from the large to the small scales. This rate, in turn,
is equal to the energy dissipated by the smallest scales. If we
rapidly stir the bath with a large arm action and then withdraw
our hand, the energy is passed this way to the small scales. The
motion ceases, and the bath is slightly warmer. Turbulence is
highly dissipative. Notice how rapidly the turbulence ceases (in
contrast to the residual wave motion).
Because the average rate of energy dissipation (per unit mass),
具典 m2兾s3, is the same as the average rate of energy input, it is
determined from the large-scale quantities: the average kinetic
energy per unit mass of the large eddies, u2, and their charac-
teristic ‘‘turn over time’’ (the lifetime of the eddy), ᐉ兾u. Thus
1. Falco, R. E. (1977) Phys. Fluids 20, 5124–5132. 15. Warhaft, Z. (2000) Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 32, 203–240.
2. Tritton, D. T. (1988) Physical Fluid Dynamics (Clarendon, Oxford). 16. Shraiman, B. I. & Siggia, E. D. (2000) Nature (London) 405, 639–646.
3. Feynman, R. P., Leighton, R. B. & Sands, M. (1963) The Feynman Lectures on 17. Tong, C. & Warhaft, Z. (1994) Phys. Fluids 6, 2165–2176.
Physics (Addison–Wesley, Reading, MA), Vol. 1, sections 3–7. 18. Sreenivasan, K. R., Antonia, R. A. & Britz, D. (1979) J. Fluid Mech. 94,
4. Reynolds, O. (1894) Philos. Trans. R. Soc. London A 186, 123–161. 745–775.
5. Richter, J. P. (1970) The Notebooks of Leonardo da Vinci (Dover, New York), 19. Holzer, M. & Siggia, E. D. (1994) Phys. Fluids 6, 1820–1837.
Plate 20 and Note 389. 20. Kraichnan, R. H. (1968) Phys. Fluids 11, 945–963.
6. Tennekes, H. & Lumley, J. L. (1972) A First Course in Turbulence (MIT Press, 21. Shen, X. & Warhaft, Z. (2000) Phys. Fluids 11, 2976–2989.
Cambridge MA). 22. Tabeling, P., Zocchi, G., Belin, F., Maurer, J. & Willaime, H. (1996) Phys. Rev.
7. Lumley, J. L., ed. (1990) Whither Turbulence? Turbulence at the Crossroads:
E 53, 1613–1621.
Lecture Notes in Physics (Springer, Berlin).
23. La Porta, A., Voth, G. A., Crawford, A. M., Alexander, J. & Bodenschatz, E.
8. Pope, S. B. (2000) Turbulent Flows (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K.).
(2001) Nature (London) 409, 1017–1019.
9. L’vov, V. & Procaccia, I. (1997) in Turbulence Modelling and Vortex Dynamics,
24. Mydlarski, L. & Warhaft, Z. (1996) J. Fluid Mech. 320, 331–368.
eds. Boratav, O. & Erzan, A. (Springer, Berlin), pp. 1–16.
10. Frisch, U. (1995) Turbulence: The Legacy of A. N. Kolmogorov (Cambridge 25. Pope, S. B. (2000) Turbulent Flows (Cambridge Univ. Press. Cambridge, U.K.).
Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K.). 26. Piomelli, U. & Chasnov, J. R. (1996) in Turbulence and Transition Modelling,
11. Saddoughi, S. G. & Veeravalli, S. V. (1994) J. Fluid Mech. 268, 333–372. eds. Hallbäck, M., Henningson, D. S., Johansson, A. V. & Alfredsson, P. H.
12. Batchelor, G. K. & Townsend, A. A. (1949) Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A 199, (Kluwer, Dordrecht, the Netherlands), pp. 269–336.
238–255. 27. Shaw, R. A., Reade, W. C., Collins, L. R. & Verliade, J. (1998) J. Atmos. Sci.
13. She, Z. S., Jackson, E. & Orzag, S. A. (1991) Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A 434, 55, 1965–1976.
101–124. 28. Hunt, J. C. R. & Vassilicos, J. C., eds. (2000) Turbulence Structure and Vortex
14. Sreenivasan, K. R. (1991) Proc. R. Soc. London Ser. A. 434, 165–182. Dynamics (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, U.K.).