BOUNDARY LAYER ON

FLAT PLATES

Ref: Frank M. White, Fluid Mechanics,

McGraw-Hill, Inc, 4th edition
Boundary Layer

airfoil

Ludwig Prandtl introduced

concept of Boundary Layer
in 1904 for the first time.
• In high Reynolds Number flow, two length scales exists
1. Far from surface, viscous forces are unimportant
and inertial forces dominate.
2. Near the surface, viscous forces are comparable
to inertial forces

Fluid in convection (low velocity gradient)

Fluid in diffusion
 trailing
edge

leading
edge

Longer plate generates turbulent boundary layer

 Navier-Stokes Equations
(momentum balance equations)
Momentum rate due
to diffusion (normal
Equations using stresses and shear stress))

Momentum
rate due to
convection
of fluid

5
Navier-Stokes Equation in Cartesian
coordinates

inertial force viscous force

 = ∂/∂x i + ∂/∂y j + ∂/∂z k

i, j, k = unity vector
Longer plate corresponds to high Re, in which convection
is more dominant than friction
7.1. Reynolds-Number and
Geometry Effects
▪ The technique of boundary-layer (BL) analysis can
be used to compute viscous effects near solid walls
and to “patch” (to join) these onto the outer inviscid
motion.
▪ In Fig. 7.1 a uniform stream U moves parallel to a
sharp flat plate of length L. If the Reynolds number
UL/ is low (Fig. 7.1a), the viscous region is very
broad and extends far ahead and to the sides of the
plate due to retardation of the oncoming stream
greatly by the plate.
 Pressure and
velocity change

Leading
edge trailing
edge

Rex = .U.x/

Pressure and
velocity slightly
change

Fig. 7.1 Comparison of flow past a sharp flat plate at low and high
Reynolds numbers: (a) laminar, low-Re flow; (b) high-Re flow
▪ At a high-Reynolds-number flow (Fig. 7.1b) the
viscous layers, either laminar or turbulent, are very
thin, thinner even than the drawing shows.
▪ We define the boundary layer thickness  as the
locus of points where the velocity u parallel to the
plate reaches 99 % of the external velocity U.
▪ As we shall see in Sec. 7.4, the accepted formulas
for flat-plate flow are
 Rex = .U0.x/

x 
▪ where Rex = Ux/ is called the local Reynolds number
of the flow along the plate surface. The turbulent-flow
formula applies for Rex > approximately 106.

▪ The blanks indicate that the formula is not applicable.

In all cases these boundary layers are so thin that
their displacement effect on the outer inviscid layer is
negligible.
▪ .
▪ This external pressure field acts as a forcing function
in the momentum equation along the surface.
▪ For slender bodies, such as plates and airfoils
parallel to the oncoming stream, the assumption of
negligible interaction between the boundary layer
and the outer pressure is an excellent approximation
because pressure along plate is constant.
▪ For a blunt-body (bluff body) flow, such as spheres,
cylinders, however, there is a pressure distribution
over the surface body, so the pressure must be taken
into account.
 Slender
body

Slender body Blunt

body
▪ Figure 7.2 shows two sketches of flow past a two-
or three-dimensional blunt body.
▪ In the idealized sketch (involving inviscid fluid)
(7.2a), there is a thin film of boundary layer about
the body and a narrow sheet of viscous wake in
the rear.
▪ In a actual flow (Fig. 7.2b), the boundary layer is
thin on the front, or windward, side of the body,
where the pressure decreases along the surface
(favorable pressure gradient).
 d

▪. Red = .U0.d/

Fig. 7.2 Illustration of the strong interaction between

viscous and inviscid regions in the rear of blunt body
flow: (a) idealized and definitely false picture of
blunt-body flow (according to Bernoulli’s law); (b)
actual picture of blunt body flow.
▪ But in the rear the boundary layer encounters
increasing pressure (adverse pressure gradient)
and breaks off, or separates, into a broad, pulsating
wake.
▪ The mainstream is deflected by this wake, so that
the external flow is quite different from the
prediction from inviscid theory with the addition of a
thin boundary layer
Kinematic viscosity =
dynamic viscosity/density
 = /

Wrong assumption
 Rex = .U.x/
 = / =kinematic Rex =U.x/
viscosity

x 
correct assumption
7.2. von Karman’s Momentum-
Integral (theoretical work)
▪ A boundary layer of unknown thickness grows
along the sharp flat plate in Fig. 7.3.
▪ The no-slip wall condition retards the flow, making
it into a rounded profile u(y), which merges into the
external velocity U constant at a “thickness” y (x).
▪ By utilizing the control volume of Fig. 7.3, we found
(without making any assumptions about laminar
versus turbulent flow) that the drag force on the
plate is given by the momentum integral across the
exit plane due to the change of velocity from U to
u(x,y)
 Force = momentum rate = m.a = mass rate x v
Mass rate = .u.A
(v1 –v2)/y
v1
y
v2
y=
y

Fig. 7.3 Growth of a boundary layer on a flat plate.

Drag force = change of momentum rate= V x mass rate =  ((U – u) x  b
(width) x u x y). This represents how much the momentum is lost due to
friction
Terminology of drag force instead of friction force is sometimes used for
flat plates
▪ where b is the plate width into the paper and the
integration is carried out along a vertical plane at a
constant x (von Kármán, 1921).
▪ To describe momentum loss, a hypothetical
quantity of momentum thickness  is introduced in
which the drag force is

▪ Therefore, momentum thickness  (in m) is defined

as the momentum loss (in kg.m/sec2 or Newton)
from x = 0 to x concerned divided by .bU2
 Drag force by definition
(von Kármán, 1921).

Covers area from

x = 0 to x
dx
b
0 x

▪ By comparing this with Eq. (7.4) Kármán arrived at

what is now called the momentum integral relation for
flat-plate boundary-layer flow (w  )
Vertical variable
horisontal variable
▪ It is valid for either laminar or turbulent flat-plate flow.
vertical- variable

local variable Variables in

momentum
integral relation
(7.5)
▪ Eq. 7.9 is the desired thickness estimate. It is all
approximate, of course, part of Kármán’s
momentum-integral theory, but it is startlingly
accurate, being only 10 percent higher than the
known exact solution for laminar flat-plate flow,
which we gave as Eq. (7.1a) (/x = 5.0/Re1/2).
▪ By combining Eqs. (7.9) and (7.7) we also obtain a
shear-stress estimate along the plate
Cf = local friction coefficient,
applying to a certain x

Flat plate Friction coefficient = (force/area)/(kinetic energy/volume)

 Vx Vx

(Vx/y)1 >
(Vx/y)2

1 2

y y

Shear stress at point 1 is higher than that at

point 2 because at point 1 dVx/dy is higher.
27
Shear stress = friction force/area
▪ Again this estimate, in spite of the crudeness of the
profile assumption (7.6) is only 10 % > the known
exact laminar-plate-flow solution cf = 0.664/Rex1/2,
treated in Sec. 7.4.
▪ The dimensionless quantity cf, called the friction
coefficient, is analogous to the friction factor f in
pipes.
▪ A boundary layer can be judged as “thin” if, say, the
ratio /x < about 0.1. /x = 0.1 = 5.0/Rex1/2 or Rex >
2500.
 Rex = .U0.x/

x 
▪ For Rex < 2500 we can estimate that boundary-
layer theory fails because the thick layer has a
significant effect on the outer inviscid flow
(thickness creates pressure distribution over the
convection flow).
▪ The upper limit on Rex for laminar flow is about
105, where measurements on a smooth flat plate
show that the flow undergoes transition to a
turbulent boundary layer starting from 3 x 106.
 7.3. Displacement Thickness
▪ Another interesting effect of a boundary layer is
displacement of the outer streamlines.
▪ As shown in Fig. 7.4, outer streamlines must deflect
outward a distance *(x) to satisfy conservation of
mass between the inlet and outlet as a result of fluid
entrainment from fluid flow to boundary layer
▪ .

▪ The quantity * is called the displacement thickness of

the boundary layer.
 Bernoulli eq.
applies (inviscid
fluid)
Navier Stokes
eq. applies
(viscous fluid)

Fluid
entrainment =
fluid mass
displacement =
fluid mass loss
We concern with * so that
h+* is required to achieve
x
.
Fig. 7.4 Displacement effect of a boundary
layer. Fluid entrainment occurs from free fluid
flow to the boundary layer, so mass rate at 0 =
mass rate at 1
Hypothetical layer attributed to fluid entrainment
 (Mass rate in + mass rate of entrainment)/(.b) Mass rate of
entrainment/(.b)

Local, vertical
variable

Mass balance:
mass rate in at 0
formed by uniform
velocity = mass
▪ Mass loss (in kg/sec) from free stream to rate out at x formed
boundary layer = mass entrainment = U*b by non-uniform
(using U instead of u to calculate). Therefore, velocity
displacement thickness * (in m) is defined
as mass loss (in kg/sec) from x = 0 to x
concerned divided by .b.U.
 at one point position x
▪ Introducing von Karman’s profile approximation (7.6)
into (7.12), we obtain by integration the approximate
result

▪ These estimates are only 6% away from the exact

solutions for laminar flat-plate flow given in Sec. 7.4:
* = 0.344  = 1.721x/Rex1/2.
▪ Since * << x for large Rex and the outer streamline
slope is proportional to *, we conclude that the
velocity normal for entrainment to the wall << the
velocity parallel to the wall. This is a key assumption
in boundary-layer theory (Sec. 7.3).
In this area, we can assume
that the flow is inviscid in
view of * if velocity was
uniform U. Therefore
Bernoulli eq. can be applied
in this area.
▪ EXAMPLE 7.2
▪ Are low-speed, small-scale air and water boundary
layers really thin? Consider flow at U = 1 ft/s past a
flat plate 1 ft long. Compute the boundary-layer
thickness at the trailing edge for (a) air and (b)
water at 20°C.
Rex = .U.x/

U
 u
y
x
(ReL > 2500, then BL is thin)
7.4 The Flat-Plate Boundary
Layer: Blasius’s Laminar flow
(experimental work)
▪ The classic and most often used solution of
boundary-layer theory is for flat-plate flow, as in
Fig. 7.3, which can represent either laminar or
turbulent flow.
▪ For laminar flow past the plate, the boundary-
layer equations (7.1a) can be solved exactly for u
and v, assuming that the free-stream velocity U is
constant (dU/dx = 0).
▪ The solution was given by Prandtl’s student, i.e.
Blasius, in 1908.
▪ With a coordinate transformation, Blasius showed
experimentally (exactly) that the dimensionless
velocity profile u/U is a function only of the single
composite dimensionless variable (y)[U/( x)]1/2:

▪ The boundary conditions (7.20) become

▪ This is the Blasius equation.

Figure 1. The result of experiment where u/U = function of
. From this curve, , 0, dan  will be determined
▪ Some tabulated values of the velocity-profile
shape u/U = f() are given in Table 7.1.
▪
U
y u

x
▪ Since u/U → 1.0 only as y → , it is customary to
select the boundary layer thickness at that point
where u/U = 0.99. From the table, this occurs at 
 5.0:

▪ With the profile known, Blasius could also compute

the wall shear 0 and displacement thickness 
from the fact that the slope at y = 0 is d ( u / U )
= 0.332
d
 von Karman
formula

▪ At a constant x (certain position of x) and y → 0, it

gives
𝑑 𝑑 𝑈 0.5 𝑑𝑦  U  d (u / U )
0,5
𝑑𝑦  du 
▪ 𝑑𝑢 = 𝑑𝑦 𝑑𝑢 = 𝑣.𝑥 or  dy  = U   x  d
𝑥 𝑑𝑢 𝑥    

▪ or w(x) = -.du/dy = 0.332  U2 (U/(x))-0.5

Cf = local friction
▪ Therefore, coefficient,
applying to a certain x

▪ Notice how close /x and cf obtained by Blasius (in

Eq. 7.24 and 7.25) are to Karman’s integral
estimates in Eqs. (7.9) and (7.10)
▪
 CD = friction force/area/(1/2  U2)
▪ In the equation of shear stress Cf = w/(1/2  U2)
▪ w(x) = 0.332  U2 (U x /())-0.5
▪ The wall shear drops off with x1/2 because of
boundary-layer growth. It varies as velocity U to
the 1.5 power. This is in contrast to laminar pipe
flow, where w is proportional to U and is
independent of x.
 Vx Vx

1 2

y y

Shear stress at point 1 is higher than that at

point 2 because at point 1 dVx/dy is higher.
48
Shear stress = friction force/area
 D(x)= drag force
applying
to an area from 0 to x

▪ If w(x) is substituted into Eq. (7.4), we compute

the total drag force
D(x)= drag
force
applying to
an area
▪ The drag increases only as x1/2 . The non from 0 to x
dimensional drag coefficient is defined as
CD = average
▪ . friction
coefficient,
applying to
an area from 0 to
L Drag coefficient = x=L
Flat plate b (force/area)/(Ek/volume)
▪ Thus, for laminar plate flow, CD = 2 x Cf (skin-
friction coefficient) at the trailing edge. This is the
drag on one side of the plate.
▪ Kármán pointed out that the drag force could also
be computed from the momentum relation (7.2). In
dimensionless form, Eq. (7.2) becomes

▪ This can be rewritten in terms of the momentum

thickness at the trailing edge (at x = L)
▪ Computation of  from the Blasius’s profile u/U or
from CD gives →

▪ The ratio of displacement to momentum thickness,

called the dimensionless-profile shape factor. For
laminar flat-plate flow

▪ A large shape factor then implies that boundary-

layer separation is about to occur (low shear stress
tends to separate boundary layer). But, it may
occurs in blunt bodies, not in slender body.
▪ If we plot the Blasius velocity profile from Table 7.1
in the form of u/U vs y/, we can see why the
simple integral-theory guess from von Karman, Eq.
(7.6), was such a great success. This is done in
Fig. 7.5.

▪ The simple parabolic approximation of von

Karman’s estimate is not far from true Blasius’s
profile (based on experiments); hence its
momentum thickness is within 10 percent of the
true value.
u/U = (y/)1/7

von Karman
profile
▪ EXAMPLE 7.3
▪ A sharp flat plate with L =1 m and b = 3 m is
immersed parallel to a stream of velocity 2 m/s.
▪ Find the drag on one side of the plate, and at the
trailing edge find the thicknesses , *, and  for
(a) air,  =1.23 kg/m3 and  =1.46x10-5 m2/s, and
(b) water,  =1000 kg/m3 and  =1.02 x 10-6 m2/s.
 Rex = .U0.x/
Rex =U.x/

x 
▪ Part a (for air).
▪ Part b (for water).
▪ The drag force is 215 x more for water and lower
drag coefficient because water is 57 x more
viscous and 813 x denser than air.
▪ From Eq. (7.26), in laminar flow, it should have
(57)1/2(813)1/2 = 7.53(28.5) = 215 x more drag.
The air layer is 3.8 times thicker than the water
layer, which reflects the square root of ratio of air to
water kinematic viscosity = 14.3 = 3.8. Or, the
higher the kinematic viscosity, the thicker is the
boundary layer,
7.5 Turbulent Boundary Layer and
Comparison with Laminar BL
 For one fifth power law

For one seventh power law

▪ Due to large thickness of turbulent boundary layer, von
Karman boundary layer momentum integral equation
for this layer is
w
For laminar BL

▪ With thin laminar boundary layer, the pressure gradient

is nearly zero and

▪ Therefore, in laminar boundary layer

For turbulent BL