Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 13

D'Alembert's paradox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


(Redirected from Hydrodynamic paradox)

Jean le Rond d'Alembert (1717-1783)

From experiments it is known that there is always except in case of superfluidity a


drag force for a body placed in a steady fluid onflow. The figure shows the drag
coefficient Cd for a sphere as a function of Reynolds number Re, as obtained from
laboratory experiments. The solid line is for a sphere with a smooth surface, while the
dashed line is for the case of a rough surface. The numbers along the line indicate
several flow regimes and associated changes in the drag coefficient:
2: attached flow (Stokes flow) and steady separated flow,
3: separated unsteady flow, having a laminar flow boundary layer upstream of the
separation, and producing a vortex street,
4: separated unsteady flow with a laminar boundary layer at the upstream side,
before flow separation, with downstream of the sphere a chaotic turbulent wake,
5: post-critical separated flow, with a turbulent boundary layer.

In fluid dynamics, d'Alembert's paradox (or the hydrodynamic paradox) is a


contradiction reached in 1752 by French mathematician Jean le Rond d'Alembert.[1]
D'Alembert proved that for incompressible and inviscid potential flow the drag
force is zero on a body moving with constant velocity relative to the fluid.[2] Zero drag
is in direct contradiction to the observation of substantial drag on bodies moving
relative to fluids, such as air and water; especially at high velocities corresponding
with high Reynolds numbers. It is a particular example of the reversibility paradox.[3]
DAlembert, working on a 1749 Prize Problem of the Berlin Academy on flow drag,
concluded: "It seems to me that the theory (potential flow), developed in all possible
rigor, gives, at least in several cases, a strictly vanishing resistance, a singular
paradox which I leave to future Geometers [i.e. mathematicians - the two terms were
used interchangeably at that time] to elucidate".[4] A physical paradox indicates flaws
in the theory.

Fluid mechanics was thus discredited by engineers from the start, which resulted in an
unfortunate split between the field of hydraulics, observing phenomena which could
not be explained, and theoretical fluid mechanics explaining phenomena which could
not be observed in the words of the Chemistry Nobel Laureate Sir Cyril
Hinshelwood.[5]

According to scientific consensus, the occurrence of the paradox is due to the


neglected effects of viscosity. In conjunction with scientific experiments, there were
huge advances in the theory of viscous fluid friction during the 19th century. With
respect to the paradox, this culminated in the discovery and description of thin
boundary layers by Ludwig Prandtl in 1904. Even at very high Reynolds numbers, the
thin boundary layers remain as a result of viscous forces. These viscous forces cause
friction drag on streamlined objects, and for bluff bodies the additional result is flow
separation and a low-pressure wake behind the object, leading to form drag.[6][7][8][9]

The general view in the fluid mechanics community is that, from a practical point of
view, the paradox is solved along the lines suggested by Prandtl.[6][7][8][9][10][11] A formal
mathematical proof is lacking, and difficult to provide, as in so many other fluid-flow
problems involving the NavierStokes equations (which are used to describe viscous
flow).

Contents
1 Viscous friction: Saint-Venant, Navier and Stokes
2 Inviscid separated flow: Kirchhoff and Rayleigh
3 Thin boundary layers: Prandtl
4 Open questions
5 Proof of zero drag in steady potential flow
o 5.1 Potential flow
o 5.2 Zero drag
6 Notes
7 References
o 7.1 Historical
o 7.2 Further reading
8 External links
Viscous friction: Saint-Venant, Navier and Stokes
First steps towards solving the paradox were made by Saint-Venant, who modelled
viscous fluid friction. Saint-Venant states in 1847:[12]

"But one finds another result if, instead of an ideal fluid object of the
calculations of the geometers of the last century one uses a real fluid,
composed of a finite number of molecules and exerting in its state of motion
unequal pressure forces or forces having components tangential to the surface
elements through which they act; components to which we refer as the friction
of the fluid, a name which has been given to them since Descartes and Newton
until Venturi."

Soon after, in 1851, Stokes calculated the drag on a sphere in Stokes flow, known as
Stokes' law.[13] Stokes flow is the low Reynolds-number limit of the NavierStokes
equations describing the motion of a viscous liquid.[14]

However, when the flow problem is put into a non-dimensional form, the viscous
NavierStokes equations converge for increasing Reynolds numbers towards the
inviscid Euler equations, suggesting that the flow should converge towards the
inviscid solutions of potential flow theory having the zero drag of the d'Alembert
paradox. Of this, there is no evidence found in experimental measurements of drag
and flow visualisations.[15] This again raised questions concerning the applicability of
fluid mechanics in the second half of the 19th century.

Inviscid separated flow: Kirchhoff and Rayleigh

Steady and separated incompressible potential flow around a plate in two dimensions,
[16]
with a constant pressure along the two free streamlines separating from the plate
edges.

In the second half of the 19th century, focus shifted again towards using inviscid flow
theory for the description of fluid dragassuming that viscosity becomes less
important at high Reynolds numbers. The model proposed by Kirchhoff[17] and
Rayleigh[18] was based on the free-streamline theory of Helmholtz[19] and consists of a
steady wake behind the body. Assumptions applied to the wake region include: flow
velocities equal to the body velocity, and a constant pressure. This wake region is
separated from the potential flow outside the body and wake by vortex sheets with
discontinuous jumps in the tangential velocity across the interface.[20][21] In order to
have a non-zero drag on the body, the wake region must extend to infinity. This
condition is indeed fulfilled for the Kirchhoff flow perpendicular to a plate. The
theory correctly states the drag force to be proportional to the square of the velocity.[22]
In first instance, the theory could only be applied to flows separating at sharp edges.
Later, in 1907, it was extended by Levi-Civita to flows separating from a smooth
curved boundary.[23]

It was readily known that such steady flows are not stable, since the vortex sheets
develop so-called KelvinHelmholtz instabilities.[21] But this steady-flow model was
studied further in the hope it still could give a reasonable estimate of drag. Rayleigh
asks "... whether the calculations of resistance are materially affected by this
circumstance as the pressures experienced must be nearly independent of what
happens at some distance in the rear of the obstacle, where the instability would first
begin to manifest itself."[18]

However, fundamental objections arose against this approach: Kelvin observed that if
a plate is moving with constant velocity through the fluid, the velocity in the wake is
equal to that of the plate. The infinite extent of the wakewidening with the distance
from the plate, as obtained from the theoryresults in an infinite kinetic energy in the
wake, which must be rejected on physical grounds.[22][24] Moreover, the observed
pressure differences between front and back of the plate, and resulting drag forces, are
much larger than predicted: for a flat plate perpendicular to the flow the predicted
drag coefficient is CD=0.88, while in experiments CD=2.0 is found. This is mainly due
to suction at the wake side of the plate, induced by the unsteady flow in the real wake
(as opposed to the theory which assumes a constant flow velocity equal to the plate's
velocity).[25]

So, this theory is found to be unsatisfactory as an explanation of drag on a body


moving through a fluid. Although it can be applied to so-called cavity flows where,
instead of a wake filled with fluid, a vacuum cavity is assumed to exist behind the
body.[21][22][26]

Thin boundary layers: Prandtl


Pressure distribution for the flow around a circular cylinder. The dashed blue line is
the pressure distribution according to potential flow theory, resulting in d'Alembert's
paradox. The solid blue line is the mean pressure distribution as found in experiments
at high Reynolds numbers. The pressure is the radial distance from the cylinder
surface; a positive pressure (overpressure) is inside the cylinder, towards the centre,
while a negative pressure (underpressure) is drawn outside the cylinder.

The German physicist Ludwig Prandtl suggested in 1904 that the effects of a thin
viscous boundary layer possibly could be the source of substantial drag.[27] Prandtl put
forward the idea that, at high velocities and high Reynolds numbers, a no-slip
boundary condition causes a strong variation of the flow speeds over a thin layer near
the wall of the body. This leads to the generation of vorticity and viscous dissipation
of kinetic energy in the boundary layer. The energy dissipation, which is lacking in the
inviscid theories, results for bluff bodies in separation of the flow. The low pressure in
the wake region causes form drag, and this can be larger than the friction drag due to
the viscous shear stress at the wall.[15]

Evidence that Prandtl's scenario occurs for bluff bodies in flows of high Reynolds
numbers can be seen in impulsively started flows around a cylinder. Initially the flow
resembles potential flow, after which the flow separates near the rear stagnation point.
Thereafter, the separation points move upstream, resulting in a low-pressure region of
separated flow.[15]

Prandtl made the hypothesis that the viscous effects are important in thin layers
called boundary layers adjacent to solid boundaries, and that viscosity has no role of
importance outside. The boundary-layer thickness becomes smaller when the
viscosity reduces. The full problem of viscous flow, described by the non-linear
NavierStokes equations, is in general not mathematically solvable. However, using
his hypothesis (and backed up by experiments) Prandtl was able to derive an
approximate model for the flow inside the boundary layer, called boundary-layer
theory; while the flow outside the boundary layer could be treated using inviscid flow
theory. Boundary-layer theory is amenable to the method of matched asymptotic
expansions for deriving approximate solutions. In the simplest case of a flat plate
parallel to the incoming flow, boundary-layer theory results in (friction) drag, whereas
all inviscid flow theories will predict zero drag. Importantly for aeronautics, Prandtl's
theory can be applied directly to streamlined bodies like airfoils where, in addition to
surface-friction drag, there is also form drag. Form drag is due to the effect of the
boundary layer and thin wake on the pressure distribution around the airfoil.[8][28]

Open questions
To verify, as Prandtl suggested, that a vanishingly small cause (vanishingly small
viscosity for increasing Reynolds number) has a large effect substantial drag may
be very difficult.

The mathematician Garrett Birkhoff in the opening chapter of his book


Hydrodynamics from 1950,[29] addresses a number of paradoxes of fluid mechanics
(including d'Alembert's paradox) and expresses a clear doubt in their official
resolutions:

"Moreover, I think that to attribute them all to the neglect of viscosity is an


unwarranted oversimplification The root lies deeper, in lack of precisely that
deductive rigor whose importance is so commonly minimized by physicists
and engineers."[30]

In particular, on d'Alembert's paradox, he considers another possible route to the


creation of drag: instability of the potential flow solutions to the Euler equations.
Birkhoff states:

"In any case, the preceding paragraphs make it clear that the theory of non-
viscous flows is incomplete. Indeed, the reasoning leading to the concept of a
"steady flow" is inconclusive; there is no rigorous justification for the
elimination of time as an independent variable. Thus though Dirichlet flows
(potential solutions) and other steady flows are mathematically possible, there
is no reason to suppose that any steady flow is stable."[31]

In his 1951 review[32] of Birkhoff's book, the mathematician James J. Stoker sharply
criticizes the first chapter of the book:

"The reviewer found it difficult to understand for what class of readers the
first chapter was written. For readers that are acquainted with hydrodynamics
the majority of the cases cited as paradoxes belong either to the category of
mistakes long since rectified, or in the category of discrepancies between
theory and experiments the reasons for which are also well understood. On
the other hand, the uninitiated would be very likely to get the wrong ideas
about some of the important and useful achievements in hydrodynamics from
reading this chapter."

In the second and revised edition of Birkhoff's Hydrodynamics in 1960, the above two
statements no longer appear.[33]

The importance and usefulness of the achievements, made on the subject of the
d'Alembert paradox, are reviewed by Stewartson thirty years later. His long 1981
survey article starts with:[10]
"Since classical inviscid theory leads to the patently absurd conclusion that
the resistance experienced by a rigid body moving through a fluid with
uniform velocity is zero, great efforts have been made during the last hundred
or so years to propose alternate theories and to explain how a vanishingly
small frictional force in the fluid can nevertheless have a significant effect on
the flow properties. The methods used are a combination of experimental
observation, computation often on a very large scale, and analysis of the
structure of the asymptotic form of the solution as the friction tends to zero.
This three-pronged attack has achieved considerable success, especially
during the last ten years, so that now the paradox may be regarded as largely
resolved."

For many paradoxes in physics, their resolution often lies in transcending the
available theory.[34] In the case of d'Alembert's paradox, the essential mechanism for
its resolution was provided by Prandtl through the discovery and modelling of thin
viscous boundary layers which are non-vanishing at high Reynolds numbers.[27]

Proof of zero drag in steady potential flow

Streamlines for the potential flow around a circular cylinder in a uniform onflow.

Potential flow

The three main assumptions in the derivation of d'Alembert's paradox is that the
steady flow is incompressible, inviscid and irrotational.[35] An inviscid fluid is
described by the Euler equations, which together with the other two conditions read

where u denotes the flow velocity of the fluid, p the pressure, the density, and is
the gradient operator.
We have the second term in the Euler equation as:

where the first equality is a vector calculus identity and the second equality uses that
the flow is irrotational. Furthermore, for every irrotational flow, there exists a velocity
potential such that u = . Substituting this all in the equation for momentum
conservation yields

Thus, the quantity between brackets must be constant (any t-dependence can be
eliminated by redefining ). Assuming that the fluid is at rest at infinity and that the
pressure is defined to be zero there, this constant is zero, and thus

which is the Bernoulli equation for unsteady potential flow.

Zero drag

Now, suppose that a body moves with constant velocity v through the fluid, which is
at rest infinitely far away. Then the velocity field of the fluid has to follow the body,
so it is of the form u(x, t) = u(x v t, 0), where x is the spatial coordinate vector, and
thus:

Since u = , this can be integrated with respect to x:

The force F that the fluid exerts on the body is given by the surface integral

where A denotes the body surface and n the normal vector on the body surface. But it
follows from (2) that
thus

with the contribution of R(t) to the integral being equal to zero.

At this point, it becomes more convenient to work in the vector components. The kth
component of this equation reads

Let V be the volume occupied by the fluid. The divergence theorem says that

The right-hand side is an integral over an infinite volume, so this needs some
justification, which can be provided by appealing to potential theory to show that the
velocity u must fall off as r3 corresponding to a dipole potential field in case of a
three-dimensional body of finite extent where r is the distance to the centre of the
body. The integrand in the volume integral can be rewritten as follows:

where first equality (1) and then the incompressibility of the flow are used.
Substituting this back into the volume integral and another application of the
divergence theorem again. This yields

Substituting this in (3), we find that

The fluid cannot penetrate the body and thus n u = n v on the body surface. Thus,
Finally, the drag is the force in the direction in which the body moves, so

Hence the drag vanishes. This is d'Alembert's paradox.

Notes
1. Jean le Rond d'Alembert (1752).
2. Grimberg, Pauls & Frisch (2008).
3. Falkovich (2011), p. 32.
4. Reprinted in: Jean le Rond d'Alembert (1768).
5. M.J. Lighthill (1956), "Physics of gas flow at very high speeds",
Nature 178 (4529): 343, Bibcode:1956Natur.178..343., doi:10.1038/178343a0
Report on a conference.
6. Landau & Lifshitz (1987), p. 15.
7. Batchelor (2000), pp. 264265, 303, 337.
8. Schlichting, Hermann; Gersten, Klaus (2000), Boundary-layer theory
(8th revised and enlarged ed.), Springer, ISBN 978-3-540-66270-9, pp. XIX
XXIII.
9. Veldman, A.E.P. (2001), "Matched asymptotic expansions and the
numerical treatment of viscousinviscid interaction", Journal of Engineering
Mathematics 39: 189206, Bibcode:2001JEnMa..39..189V,
doi:10.1023/A:1004846400131
10. Stewartson (1981).
11. Feynman, R.P.; Leighton, R.B.; Sands, M. (1963), The Feynman
Lectures on Physics, Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley, ISBN 978-0-201-
02116-5, Vol. 2, 415: The limit of zero viscosity, pp. 419 4110.
12. Saint-Venant, A. (1847), "Mmoire sur la thorie de la rsistance des
fluides. Solution du paradoxe propos ce sujet par d'Alembert aux
gomtres. Comparaison de la thorie aux expriences", Comptes Rendu des
Sances de l'Academie des Science 24: 243246, retrieved 2008-08-15
13. Stokes, G.G. (1851), "On the effect of the internal friction of fluids on
the motion of pendulums", Trans. Cambridge Phil. Soc. 9: 8106,
Bibcode:1851TCaPS...9....8S. Reprinted in Stokes, G.G., Mathematical and
Physical Papers (2nd ed.) (Cambridge Univ. Press) 3 Missing or empty |
title= (help)

14. The Stokes flow equations have a solution for the flow around a
sphere, but not for the flow around a circular cylinder. This is due to the
neglect of the convective acceleration in Stokes flow. Convective acceleration
is dominating over viscous effects far from the cylinder (Batchelor, 2000, p.
245). A solution can be found when convective acceleration is taken into
account, for instance using the Oseen equations (Batchelor, 2000, pp. 245
246).
15. Batchelor (2000), pp. 337343 & plates.
16. Batchelor (2000), p. 499, eq. (6.13.12).
17. Kirchhoff, G. (1869), "Zur Theorie freier Flssigkeitsstrahlen",
Journal fr die reine und angewandte Mathematik 70: 289298,
doi:10.1515/crll.1869.70.289
18. Rayleigh, Lord (1876), "On the resistance of fluids", Philosophical
Magazine 5 (2): 430441. Reprinted in: Scientific Papers 1:287296.
19. Helmholtz, H. L. F. von (1868), "ber discontinuierliche
Flssigkeitsbewegungen", Monatsberichte der Kniglichen Akademie der
Wissenschaften zu Berlin 23: 215228. Reprinted in: Philosophical Magazine
(1868) 36:337346.
20. Batchelor (2000), pp. 338339
21. Wu, T. Y. (1972), "Cavity and wake flows", Annual Review of Fluid
Mechanics 4: 243284, Bibcode:1972AnRFM...4..243W,
doi:10.1146/annurev.fl.04.010172.001331
22. Lamb, H. (1994), Hydrodynamics (6th ed.), Cambridge University
Press, p. 679, ISBN 978-0-521-45868-9
23. Levi-Civita, T. (1907), "Scie e leggi di resistenza", Rendeconti del
Circolo Matematico di Palermo 23: 137, doi:10.1007/bf03013504
24. Lord Kelvin (1894), "On the doctrine of discontinuity of fluid motion,
in connection with the resistance against a solid moving through a fluid",
Nature 50 (1300): 5245, 549, 5735, 5978, Bibcode:1894Natur..50..524K,
doi:10.1038/050524e0 Reprinted in: Mathematical and Physical Papers 4:
215230.
25. Batchelor (2000), p. 500.
26. Batchelor (2000), pp. 493494.
27. Prandtl (1904).
28. Batchelor (2000) pp. 302314 & 331337.
29. Garrett Birkhoff, Hydrodynamics: a study in logic, fact, and similitude,
Princeton University Press, 1950
30. Birkhoff (1950) p. 4.
31. Birkhoff (1950) p. 21.
32. James J. Stoker (1951), "Review: Garrett Birkhoff, Hydrodynamics, a
study in logic, fact, and similitude", Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 57 (6): 497499,
doi:10.1090/S0002-9904-1951-09552-X.
33. Closest to the first quote comes, on page 5:
"...It is now usually claimed that such paradoxes are due to the differences
between real fluids having small but finite viscosity, and ideal fluids
having zero viscosity. Thus it is essentially implied that one can rectify
Lagrange's claim, by substituting Navier-Stokes for Euler. This claim
will be discussed critically in Ch. II; it may well be correct in principle for
incompressible viscous flow. However, taken literally, I think it is still very
misleading, unless explicit attention is paid to the plausible hypotheses listed
above, and to the lack of rigor implied by their use. Though I do not know of
any case when a deduction, both physically and mathematically rigorous, has
led to a wrong conclusion, very few of the deductions of rational
hydrodynamics can be established rigorously. The most interesting ones
involve free use of Hypotheses (A)-(F)..."

The Lagrange claim is given by Birkhoff on page 3:

"...One owes to Euler the first general formulas for fluid motion ... presented
in the simple and luminous notation of partial differences ... By this discovery,
all fluid mechanics was reduced to a single point of analysis, and if the
equations involved were integrable, one could determine completely, in all
cases, the motion of a fluid moved by any forces..."

(Birkhoff, 1960, 2nd ed.)

34. For instance, the paradox of the constancy of the speed of light in all
directions, was solved by the special theory of relativity.
35. This article follows the derivation in Section 6.4 of Batchelor (2000).

References
Historical

d'Alembert, Jean le Rond (1752), Essai d'une nouvelle thorie de la rsistance


des fluides
d'Alembert, Jean le Rond (1768), "Memoir XXXIV", Opuscules Mathmatiques
5 (I ed.), pp. 132138.
Prandtl, Ludwig (1904), Motion of fluids with very little viscosity 452, NACA
Technical Memorandum

Further reading

Batchelor, G. (2000), An introduction to fluid dynamics, Cambridge


Mathematical Library (2nd ed.), Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-
521-66396-0, MR 1744638
Falkovich, G. (2011), Fluid Mechanics, a short course for physicists,
Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-1-107-00575-4
Grimberg, G.; Pauls, W.; Frisch, U. (2008), "Genesis of dAlemberts paradox
and analytical elaboration of the drag problem", Physica D 237 (1417):
18781886, arXiv:0801.3014, Bibcode:2008PhyD..237.1878G,
doi:10.1016/j.physd.2008.01.015
Landau, L. D.; Lifshitz, E. M. (1987), Fluid Mechanics, Course of Theoretical
Physics 6 (2nd ed.), Pergamon Press, ISBN 978-0-08-009104-4
Stewartson, K. (1981), "D'Alembert's Paradox", SIAM Review 23 (3): 308
343, doi:10.1137/1023063

External links
Potential Flow and d'Alembert's Paradox at MathPages

Categories:
Fluid dynamics
Paradoxes

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi