15 Nunner, W.
, "Warmeubergang und Druckabfall in rauhen
= 0.2
R'
for at least 0.03 < e/8 < 0.08. From the locus of the merge
points in the mean velocity and turbulence distributions it is
concluded t h a t the spread of turbulent kinetic energy and Reyn-
olds shear stress change precede the spread of momentum change.
6 In the region near the wall, termed the lower layer, whose
boundary is defined by the locus of the lower knee points, the
flow assumes a character influenced by the rough wall. The
growth of this layer was found to correlate with the growth of the
wake behind the initial element, i.e.,
l(x)
KX-
e
where K can be viewed as a turbulent Reynolds number for the
element based on the element height and the mean velocity of the
fully-developed flow t h a t precedes the element at the location of
the crest of the element.
7 T h e flow in the wake behind an isolated element was found
to be approximately self-preserving.
Acknowledgments
The authors appreciate the helpful comments of Professor D .
M. McEligot, Department of Aerospace and Mechanical Engi-
neering, University of Arizona.
References
1 Jacobs, W., "Umformung eines turbulenten Geschwindig-
keits-Profils," Zeitschrift fur angewandt Maihematik und Mecha-
nik, Vol. 19, 1939, pp. 87-100 (Translated: NACA T M No. 951.)
2 Carper, H. J., Heilhecker, J. K., and Logan, E., " T h e
Effect of a Change in Wall Roughness on Turbulence Intensity
and Shear Stress Distribution in a Two-dimensional Channel
Flow," Developments in Mechanics, Vol. 4, Proceedings, Eighth
Midwestern Mechanics Conference, Elmsford, N . Y.; Pergamon,
1965, pp. 16-25.
3 Islam, O., and Logan, E., "Channel Flow Over a Smooth-
to-Rough Surface Discontinuity with Zero Pressure Gradient,"
ASME Paper No. 76-FE-4, 1976.
4 Tani, I., and Makita, PL, "Response of a Turbulent Shear
Flow to a Step-wise Change in Wall Roughness," Zeitschrift fur
Flugwissenschaften, Vol. 19, 1971, pp. 335-339.
5 Clauser, F . H., "The Turbulent Boundary Layer," Ad-
vances in Applied Mechanics, Vol. 4, 1956, pp. 1-51.
6 Antonia, P. A., and Luxton, R. E., "The Response of a
Turbulent Boundary to an Upstanding Step Change in Surface
Roughness," Journal of Basic Engineering, TRANS. ASME,
Series D, Vol. 93, 1971, pp. 22-34.
7 Antonia, P. A., and Luxton, R. E., "The Response of a
Turbulent Boundary Layer to a Step Change in Surface Rough-
ness, P a r t 1, Smooth to Rough," Journal of Fluid Mechanics,
Vol. 48, 1971, pp. 721-761.
8 Antonia, P. A., and Luxton, R. E., "The Response of a
Turbulent Boundary Layer to a Step Change in Surface Rough-
ness, P a r t 2, Rough to Smooth," Journal of Fluid Mechanics,
Vol. 53, 1972, pp. 737-757.
9 Mueller, T. J., and Robertson, J. M., "A Study of the
Mean Motion and Turbulence Downstream of a Roughness Ele-
m e n t , " Proceedings of the First Southeastern Conference on
Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, Gatlinburg, Tenn., M a y 3-4,
1962.
10 Plate, E . J., Aerodynamic Characteristics of Atmospheric
Boundary Layers, (USAEC TID-25465), National Technical In-
formation Service, Springfield, 1971.
11 Oka, S., and Kostic, Z., "Flow Field Past a Single Rough-
ness Element in Channel of Rectangular Cross-section," Heat and
Mass Transfer in Boundary Layers, Vol. I, Pergamon, Oxford,
1972.
12 Logan, E., and Jones, J. B., "Flow in a Pipe Following
an Abrupt Increase in Surface Roughness," Journal of Basic
Engineering, TKANS. ASME, Series D, Vol. 85, 1963, pp. 35-46.
13 Morris, H. M., "Design Method for Flow in Rough Con-
duits," Journal of the Hydraulics Division, Proceedings of the
ASCE, Vol. 85, 1959, pp. 43-62.
14 Schlichtmg, H., Boundary-layer Theory, McGraw-Hill,
New York, 1968, p. 585.
Journal of Fluids Engineering
Copyright © 1977 by ASME
Downloaded 09 Dec 2010 to 82.137.208.59. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Rohren," VDI-Forschungsheft 465, Vol. 22, 1956, pp. 5-39
(Translated: A E R E lib./Trans. 786, 1958).
16 Mobius, H., "Experimental Investigation of Resistance
and Velocity Distribution in Tubes with Regularly Arranged
Roughnesses in Turbulent Flow," Phijsik Zeitschrift, Vol. 41,
1940, pp. 202-255.
17 Hanjalic, K., and Launder, B. E., "Fully-Developed
Asymmetric Flow in a Plane Channel," Journal of Fluid Me-
chanics, Vol. 51, 1972, pp. 301-335.
18 Makita, H., "Response of a Turbulent Boundary Layer
to a Sudden Change in Surface Roughness," Unpublished M.
Eng. thesis, University of Tokyo, 1968.
19 Counihan, J., Hunt, J. C. R., and Jackson, P. S., "Wakes
Behind Two-dimensional Surface Obstacles in Turbulent Bound-
ary Layers," Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 64, 1974, pp.
529-563.
DISCUSSION
2
W. H. Schofield
This paper competently treats the response of a turbulent
shear flow to a change in surface roughness in a flow situation of
practical importance. The outstanding feature of the work is
the turbulence data around the roughness elements. These data
illustrate the periodic flow regime close to the rough wall for the
first time. Complete data of this sort will eventually lead to a
detailed knowledge of the turbulence structure around a rough-
ness array.
The most disappointing aspect of the paper is t h a t although a
large number of roughness geometries were tested there is very
little comparison of the results for different geometries. The great
majority of the results presented refer to a single geometry—
configuration A, which in the usual roughness terminology, is a
"k" type roughness pattern (Perry, et al. [15]). Recently Woob
and Antonia [16] have shown that the turbulent structure over a
"d" type rough wall (a close packed array similar to configura-
tion D of the authors which they termed "skimming type") is
quite different from t h a t over a "k" type rough wall. A differ-
ence in behaviour after a change in roughness could therefore be
expected for this roughness geometry (and is in fact indicated in
Fig. 11). I t is to be hoped t h a t further detailed comparisons for
the various roughness types will be presented by these authors in a
subsequent Technical Note.
An overshoot of wall shear (above its final value) immediately
after a change in roughness is a common and important feature
of flows after a change in roughness. The pressure gFadient in
Fig. 1 does not appear to "assume its fully developed value im-
mediately" as stated in the paper. In fact the pressure gradient
shown implies an overshoot in T wa n with a magnitude of c^ 40
percent of the final value over the first one or two diameters after
the change in roughness. However this value for the overshoot
will be inaccurate if at the change in roughness there is also a
change in effective tube diameter, which would also affect the
pressure gradient.
This overshoot is also well displayed by the slopes of the inner
profile in Fig. 2, which is effectively a Clauser Chart (Clauser
[21]) if the small variation in Ucis ignored. In addition the authors
note t h a t at X/D' = 0.425 the Reynolds stress overshoots the
equilibrium distribution near the wall, however it also appears
that this Reynolds stress distribution is heading for a wall shear
t h a t is greater than the equilibrium value.
In Fig. 2 the final profile (X/D' = 18) is labelled "fully de-
veloped" meaning the profile shape is invariant with further
axial development. However this has not been demonstrated by
"Aeronautical Research Laboratories, Department of Defense, Victoria,
Australia.
SEPTEMBER 1977 / 553
 comparison of the X/D' = 18 profile with another profile further
downstream nor is there reference in the paper to such a profile
having been recorded. Fig. 9 shows the "lower knee point" has
not reached the pipe centerline at X/D' = 18 and hence it seems
possible that this profile has not yet reached equilibrium. A
simple test for equilibrium is to plot the X/D' = 18 profile on
defect coordinates [(Uc — U)/u*, Y + e)/R'Y and compare it
with the Universal Velocity Defect Law for pipes. If the profiles
agree then the flow has completely adjusted to the new boundary
condition and has forgotten its early smooth wall history. It
seems preferable to use defect coordinates here as they expand the
outer part of the profile where the last part of the flow adjust-
ment occurs. If on this basis the X/D' = 18 profile is fully de-
veloped then pipe flow requires almost twice the distance (36
W) as a similar zero pressure gradient flow (20 5, Antonia and
Luxton, author's reference [6]) to become fully developed.
The edge of the internal layer is that point where some meas-
ured quantity (say U/Uc) merges with the corresponding profile
of a reference layer that developed under the same conditions
but without the change in roughness. In pipe flow the profile
before the change in roughness can be used as a reference (as
was done in this paper) in determining the merge points. I am
not aware of any physical basis for using "knee" points to deter-
mine the edge of the internal layer or for assuming that they will
necessarily coincide or correlate with merge points in this OT
any other flow with a sudden change in boundary conditions.
Knee points were introduced by Antonia and Luxton—author's
reference [6] (on the basis of a tentative half power velocity dis-
tribution analysis) and later abandoned by them. There seems
no reason to continue their use when merge points are simple to
determine and have physical meaning.
There appears to be no evidence presented in the paper to
support the assumption that the upper knee points can be used
as an approximate measure of the extent of the shear layer pro-
duced by the first element. In fact Fig. 9 would suggest a dif-
ference between the two that is variable and as large as 60 per-
cent (at X/D' = 0.425). Similarly no evidence is cited for taking
the lower knee point as a measure of the extent of the "reat-
tachment wake" behind an element.
Conclusion 5 could be read as meaning that the internal layer
grows as 0.2 [X/5]°* for any change in roughness provided 0.03
< e/S < 0.08. The important qualification that should be
stated is that the roughness geometry must also be upstanding.
If it is downstanding the growth exponent will be 0.8 (author's
reference [7]). Again for flow over "d" type roughness (skimming
roughness in this paper) the growth constant is significantly
smaller (0.14) and the flow model given in the paper cannot be
applicable (see Wood and Antonia [16] and Antonia and Wood
[18] for flow details over this roughness type).
The internal layer growth rate is expressed in this paper (as in
earlier papers) in terms of 6—an outer flow length scale. It is
preferable to relate the internal layer growth rate to a length
scale associated with the wall, as the flow modification originates
from the wall and is driven by the change in wall shear. The wall
length scale, z obtained by writing the universal law of the wall as
u 1, / yu* \ 1
was used in Townsend's [19] analysis of this type of flow. This
analysis related 8o/z to X/z and Schofield [6] subsequently
showed that these variables correlate results for three different
flows. It would be interesting to see if the present results agree
with this result.
'Numbers in brackets indicate Additional References at end of discussion.
'u* = friction velooity (Twall/p)1'2; e = error in origin of the mean velocity
profile, see Moore [3], Sohofield [6J.
554 / SEPTEMBER 1977
Downloaded 09 Dec 2010 to 82.137.208.59. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Additional References
15 Perry. A. E., Schofield, W. H., and Joubert, P. N., "Hough
Wall Turbulent Boundary Layers," / . Fluid Mech., Vol. 37
1969, pp. 383-413. '
16 Wood, D. H., and Antonia, R. A., "Measurements in a
Turbulent Boundary Layer Over a 'd' Type Surface Roughness,"
Journal of Appl. Mech., Vol. 42 TKANS. ASME, Vol. 97, Series
E, No. 3 Sept. 1975, p. 591.
17 Moore, W. L., PhD thesis, State University of Iowa, 1951.
18 Antonia, R. A., and Wood, D. H., "Calculation of a Tur-
bulent Boundary Layer Downstream of a Small Step Change in
Surface Roughness," Aero. Quarterly, Aug. 1975, pp. 202-210.
19 Townsend, A. A., "Self Preserving Flow Inside a Turbu-
lent Boundary Layer," / . Fluid Mech., Vol. 22, 1965, pp. 773-797.
20 Schofield, W. H., "Measurements in Adverse - Pressure -
Gradient Turbulent Boundary Layers with a Step Change in
Surface Roughness," J. Fluid Mech., Vol. 70, 1975, pp. 573-593.
21 Clauser, F. H., "Turbulent Boundary Layers in Adverse
Pressure Gradients," / . Aero. Sci., Vol. 21, 1954, p. 91.
J. C. R. Hunt 5
This is an interesting and worthwhile contribution to the study
of flow over roughness elements. The authors make detailed
comparison with two of the findings of Counihan, Hunt, and
Jackson (reference [19]):
(i) that the thickness of the wake l(x) behind a single surface
obstacle grows approximately as x0-6, (much as a wake behind an
obstacle in a uniform flow)
(ii) that the velocity deficit Aw has a self preserving form in
the wake behind the single element. (In the case of reference [19]
Auax-if(y/l(x)))-
In making this comparison the authors do not emphasize the
difference between the zero pressure gradient boundary layer
studied in reference [19] and the pipe flow studied here. A simple
extension of the analysis of reference [19] to the wake behind a
single roughness element in a pipe wall suggests (a) that l(x)
is proportional to x0-5 as before, (6) that when x > D and
when D%/(ke) >> x where K is a dimensionless eddy viscosity,
6 is the element height and the pipe diameter is D, the perturbed
flow outside the wake is affected by the confinement of the pipe
walls, so that Auax~mf(y/l(x)). The authors observe in Fig. 13
that Auax"112, as we suggest, but they do not comment on the
difference between their x~~m decay and the ar 1 decay of Ait in
reference [19]. It would be interesting to know whether they
measured the wall pressure behind the single element; if so, how
slowly did the pressure gradient revert to its upstream value?
Author's Closure
We are grateful to Drs. Schofield and Hunt for their helpful and
illuminating comments on this paper. Particularly useful are the
suggestions for future work, e.g., a detailed comparison of results
for various roughness geometries and a new correlation using the
wall length scale Z.
We agree with Dr. Schofield that an overshoot of wall stress
does occur and is clearly indicated by the slopes of the velocity
profiles in Fig. 2. Although no velocity defect profile has yet been
plotted using the mean velocity data at X/D' — 18 (Fig. 2),
confirmation of the fully-developed character of the profile was
accomplished by comparing it with the fully-developed profile
of Nunner (reference [15]). Measured mean velocity profiles at
X/D' = 16.425, 18.025, and 30.025 were compared with Nunner's
profile at X/D' = 30 for the same roughness geometry and were
found to agree well. Further evidence of full development was
obtained by observing the similarity of the turbulence profiles
measured at X/D' = 30 and at X/D' = 18 (e.g., see Fig. 3).
6
University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England.
Transactions of the ASME
 The term "knee" point should perhaps be abandoned as it is
only an approximation of the merge point which has real physical
significance. Knee points do have the advantage of being easily
determined. Shear layer thickness, as pointed out by Dr. Scho-
field, is correctly based on the upper merge points, since a larger
error exists at small X/D' if knee points are used. Similarly the
lower merge points should be used in lieu of lower knee points in
determining the wake depth behind the element.
The slumming flow and downstanding element cases are not
covered by the equation of conclusion 5. The authors were not
aware of the growth constant found by Antonia and Wood for
skimming flow but have independently verified the downstanding
exponent (0.8) using the data of reference [12].
We appreciate Dr. Hunt's extension of his theory to include the
single element in pipe flow. Our data agree with his theoretical
prediction, i.e., the velocity deficit is proportional to X -1 ' 2 .
Unfortunately, we did not obtain the detailed pressure distribu-
tion for the single element.

Readers of the Journal of Fluids Engineering may be interested in:

Condensation in High-Speed Flows

y
A collection of papers presented at the 1977 Joint Meeting of the Fluids Engineering, Applied Mechanics and
Bioengineering Divisions of The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New Haven, Connecticut, June 15-17,
1977.

Editor: A. A. Pouring

On the Growth of Steam Droplets Formed in a Laval Nozzle Using Both Static Pressure and Light Scattering
Measurements C. A. Moses and G. D. Stein

Optical Studies of Nucleation in High-Pressure Expanding Steam I. J. Valha and D. J. Ryley

The Direct Measurement of Nucleation Rate Constants R. A. Dobbins, T. I. Eklund and R. Tjoa

Analysis of Nitrogen Condensation in an Expanding Nozzle Flow F. C. Wang

Analysis of Condensation in the Centered Expansion Wave in a Shock Tube B. J. C. Wu

Condensation of H 2 0 and D 2 0 in Argon in the Centered Expansion Wave in a Shock Tube C. F. Lee

1977. Book No. G00119, 98pgs. $16.00, ASME members $8.00

A S M E Order Department — 3 4 5 East 4 7 t h Street — N e w York, N.Y. 1 0 0 1 7

Journal of Fluids Engineering SEPTEMBER 1977 / 555

Downloaded 09 Dec 2010 to 82.137.208.59. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm