Past exam of the viscous flow course of the University of Oxford / 2023 / 2

For the proposed velocity field, $u_x+w_z=1-1=0$, so incompressibility holds. Its convective acceleration isand both components have zero Laplacian. The Navier-Stokes equation therefore requires $p_x=-x$ and $p_z=-z$. Hencewhere $p_{\ast }$ is an arbitrary constant reference pressure. The same pressure gradient balances the same convective acceleration in the Euler equations for an inviscid fluid. Since the viscous terms vanish identically, this is an exact solution for every positive Reynolds number, as well as for the inviscid limit.

At $z=0$, the normal velocity is zero, and the prescribed dimensionless tangential traction isThis stagnation point flow therefore has zero surface shear stress, although its strain-rate tensor and its viscous normal stresses are nonzero.

The held-flat interface imposes the no-penetration boundary condition, while its specified tangential traction gives a shear stress condition:A differentiable boundary value $w(x,0)\equiv 0$ implies $w_x(x,0)=0$, so the second boundary condition is also $u_z(x,0)=\beta x$. There is no imposed no-slip boundary condition at this interface; tangential velocity is determined by the shear stress and the fluid equations.

The solution in part (a) has zero tangential traction, and so remains valid for the whole interface if and only if $\beta =0$. At the single point $x=0$ the imposed shear stress vanishes for any $\beta$, but this does not satisfy a boundary condition that must hold for every $x$.

In a thin boundary layer, take streamwise velocity and distance to be order one, set $z=\delta \zeta$, and use incompressibility to set $w=\delta W$. The streamwise convective acceleration is order one, whereas its dominant viscous contribution after division by the Reynolds number is ${\mathrm{Re}}^{-1}{\delta }^{-2}{u}_{\zeta \zeta }$. Their dominant balance selectsWith this choice, the exact rescaled Navier-Stokes equations areThus the leading pressure is independent of $\zeta$. Matching it to the outer solution from part (a), evaluated near $z=0$, gives $p=p_{\ast }-x^2/2$, hence $-p_x=x$. The leading boundary-layer equation is thereforeThe exact surface shear stress condition rescales to $u_{\zeta }+{\delta }^2{W}_x=\delta \beta x=\gamma x$. Since $W(x,0)=0$ for all $x$, its tangential derivative also vanishes there. The leading surface boundary conditions areMatching to the outer solution requiresThe second matching condition specifies the leading growth of $W$, allowing a constant displacement correction. Requiring $W+\zeta \to 0$ would impose an extra condition not supplied by the leading outer solution. This is the stress-driven stagnation-point boundary layer.

With $u=x{f}^{\prime }(\zeta )$ and $W=-f(\zeta )$, incompressibility is automatic because $u_x=f^{\prime }$ and $W_{\zeta }=-f^{\prime }$. In the streamwise boundary-layer equation,Equating coefficients of $x$ givesThis coefficient comparison determines the equation even though the streamwise equation vanishes identically at the stagnation point $x=0$.

The no-penetration boundary condition gives $f(0)=0$, the surface shear stress gives $x{f}^{\prime \prime }(0)=\gamma x$, and matching the tangential velocity to the outer solution gives $f^{\prime }\to 1$. ThusIf the correction $f^{\prime }-1$ is integrable at the far end, then $f=\zeta +O(1)$ there, which is consistent with $W\sim -\zeta$. The small-shear stress solution below has precisely this property.

At zero surface shear stress, the solution connected to part (a) isIndeed, it has $f_0^{\prime }=1$, $f_0^{\prime \prime }=f_0^{\prime \prime \prime }=0$ and $f_0(0)=0$. Insert the regular perturbation $f=\zeta +\gamma f_1+O({\gamma }^2)$ into the nonlinear ordinary differential equation. The terms areThe coefficient of $\gamma$ therefore givesExpanding the surface boundary conditions and the far-field matching condition givesThe printed $+\infty$ limit is a sign error. It is present in the native PDF on paper page 3, not introduced by transcription. The fluid occupies $z<0$, the inner variable is $\zeta =z/\delta <0$, and part (b)(iii) correctly matches at $-\infty$. We retain that physical domain throughout. A change to the positive coordinate $\eta =-\zeta$ would also change the differential equation and surface derivative signs; it cannot be made by changing only the far-field sign.

The inequality ${\delta }^2\ll \gamma$ ensures that effects discarded at order ${\delta }^2$ in the boundary-layer scaling are smaller than the retained order-$\gamma$ perturbation. The inequality $\gamma \ll 1$ justifies this regular perturbation. The two conditions control different approximations.

Set $g=f_1^{\prime }$. The boundary value problem becomesFor $y_1=1+{\zeta }^2$, direct substitution gives $y_1^{\prime \prime }+\zeta y_1^{\prime }-2y_1=2+2{\zeta }^2-2(1+{\zeta }^2)=0$. This growing polynomial solution is useful for reduction of order.

Write $g=y_{1}v$. Substitution into the linear ordinary differential equation cancels the terms proportional to $v$ and givesAn integrating factor for this first-order equation for $v^{\prime }$ yieldsThe far-field boundary condition selects the convergent integral from $-\infty$:Any additional multiple of $1+{\zeta }^2$ would grow at $-\infty$. The chosen expression tends to zero: for $r=-\zeta \ge 1$,Here $(1+t^2{)}^{-2}\le (1+r^2{)}^{-2}$ and ${\int }_r^{\infty }{e}^{-t^2/2}dt\le r^{-1}{\int }_r^{\infty }t{e}^{-t^2/2}dt$. Thus the far-field boundary condition is verified without a cancellation of large terms.

At $\zeta =0$, differentiating gives $g^{\prime }(0)=C$, so $C=1$. Using the antiderivative supplied in the paper gives the explicit answerHere $\mathrm{erf}$ is the error function. Finally,recovers the unique correction satisfying $f_1(0)=0$. The decay bound also shows that $f_1$ approaches a finite constant at $-\infty$, as allowed by the normal velocity matching. This is the weak surface-shear perturbation of stagnation flow.

If the printed $+\infty$ condition is instead imposed literally on a positive half-line, reduction of order givesIt satisfies $g_{+}^{\prime }(0)=1$ but grows as $\zeta \to -\infty$, so it cannot describe the fluid domain specified in this paper. This makes the consequence of the printed sign error explicit.

At the interface, the tangential velocity is $u(x,0)=x{f}^{\prime }(0)$ and the normal velocity remains zero. The preceding error function expression givesHence, within the leading boundary layer model,Allowing the formally discarded finite-Reynolds number terms gives an additional order-${\delta }^2$ error, smaller than the order-$\gamma$ correction under the assumed ordering. The coefficient is $\sqrt{\pi /8}\approx 0.626657$.

Thus positive surface shear increases the outward surface speed linearly: for $x>0$ it increases $u$, and for $x<0$ it makes $u$ more negative. The stagnation point remains at $x=0$. A negative coefficient would result from using the printed $+\infty$ condition literally, and would describe the different half-line problem identified in part (ii).