黄万里文集-第15节
按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页,按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页,按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部!
————未阅读完?加入书签已便下次继续阅读!
)
? umin ? ?
? h ?
Until 1858; Bazin; an assistant to D’ Arcy; developed the parabolic curve of velocity
profile from results of experiments in the middle of a natural river。 The equation
proposed was
2
u ? u
? y ?
max = 20? ?
hJ ? h ?
in which u is the velocity of flow at the depth y; h… the maximum depth; J – the slope。
Later; Pressey; in America; Jasmund and Bolte; in Germany; improved the
Bazin’s result of the constancy of the value 20 by introducing the effect of the
roughness of channel on the increase of curvature of the profile。 R。Jasmund (1893 –
97) examined 445 velocity profiles based on his observations on the Elbe。 He
proposed four types of curves; i。e。; parabolas with horizontal and vertical axes;
hyperbola and logarithmic curves for trials in fitting the data; and concluded that the
latter was the best fit:
u = a + b lg ( y + c )
where a; b; and c are constants for a particular stream。
Not until 1883; when the essence of turbulent vs。laminar flows was fully
understood through the works of O。 Reynolds; different formulas were developed for
the two regimes。 The Prandtl…Karman semi…rational approach to the logarithmic
formula for turbulent flow has been popularly accepted。
Nevertheless; the distribution of velocity along a vertical of flow still remains
void of reason。 The subject; however; is of wide interest to hydraulics in practice; so
as to answer the requirement of verifying the Prandtl…Karman formula; as well as to
the mechanics of sediment transport which is closely related to the shape of the
vertical velocity curve。
On the Inconsistencies in the Prandtl…Karman Analysis
L。 Prandtl and Th。 von Karman have successively developed the mixing length
theory and velocity deficiency Law of turbulent pipe flow by coordinating theoretical
analysis partially with experimental research。 Nevertheless; these fruitful results
83
remain with inconsistencies in both theory and practice。
Firstly; for a definite shear stress
? o = ? hJ; the effect of wall roughness is
assumed to be only limited to a shallow region of viscous sublayer adjacent to the
wall; while the velocity distribution in the turbulent core is assumed to be identical
for all conditions of flow。
Secondly; assumption has been made that the turbulent core velocity curve u~y
joins abruptly the viscous film straight line at the point of depth y = δ=11。6? /u* ;
where u* is the shear velocity and ? ; the kinematic viscosity。 This is far from truth
as shown by many recent velocity measurements close to the boundary (1) 。 The slopes
du
of velocity gradients
dy
for the two regimes are radically different。
Thirdly; in puting the average velocity by summation; the effect of flow
within the range y