Anda di halaman 1dari 20

Technical Report No 2/2012 ASCD-ME, Aligarh India

Corrections/IIPR1: Accounting for uncertainty in the analysis of overlap layer mean velocity models [Phys. Fluids 24, 075108 (2012)] by Oliver, T.A. and Moser, R.D. Noor Afzal2
Aero-Space Consultancy Division, Golden Apartment, Sahab Bagh, Aligarh 202002, India (22 December 2012) This work rstly deals with the necessary corrections that have been causing an interference in intelactual property rights of research work of Afzal et al. (1973, 1976, 1985) in a paper by Oliver and Moser (2012). The corrections by Afzal (2012) were unduly declined form publication by John Kim Editor Physics of Fluids where as several analogous Erratum/corrections; say, Molla, David & Kuhn (2013), published in same journal, by same Editor. Secondly an analysis for transitional rough surface in terms of log law and power law is also presented. Thirdly. implications of the Prandtl (1941) transport theorem are also considered for seeking the eect of the shift of origin of normal co-ordinate (y to y + a) on the velocity distribution.

1. Corrections to work of Oliver and Moser 2012


In a recent paper by Oliver and Moser (2012), the citations for extended forms of the logarithmic law for the overlap layer in turbulent wall-bounded ow have been found to be incomplete. The classical log law is u+ = 1 ln(y + ) + C (1)

The models of Afzal (0), Afzal (1) and Squire in question in overlap region are: u+ = u+ = 1 E ln(y + ) + C + + y (2) (3) (4)

1 E 1 1 E1 ln(y + ) + C + + + + ln(y + ) + C1 + B1 y + + + y 1 y 1 u+ = ln(y + + a+ ) + C

1 2

IIPR: Interference in intelactual property rights of Afzal et al. 1973, 1976, 1985 email: noor.afzal@yahoo.com

which correspond to equations (8), (9), and (10), respectively, in Oliver and Moser (2012), incorrectly designated as Buschmann(0), Buschmann(1) and Oberlack models. The case of rough wall considered by Oliver and Moser (2012) typically modeled the velocity oset U+ that is dependent on the roughness height k + = u ks / , where ks is the equivalent sand grain roughness height, but constant in y + : + + . u + (y + , + ; k + ) = u + U+ (k + ) (5) s (y , ) + + where u+ U+ the s (y , ) is the smooth wall model of the overlap layer (2) or (3) with roughness function of Clauser (1954) and Hama (1954). The overlap layer relation (3) for surface roughness Afzal (1) with roughness function becomes u+ = 1 E 1 ln(y + ) + C + + + y R 1 E1 ln(y + ) + C1 + B1 y + + + 1 y U+ (k + ) (6)

Two two model were considered by Oliver and Moser (2012): Colebrook (1939) monotonic roughness U+ = 1 ln(1 + CCR k + ), where CCR is a calibration parameter, typically assigned values between 0.2 and 0.3 and the Nikuradse (1933) sand grain inectional roughness U+ = 1 ln k + CN R , where CN R is also a calibration parameter, usually given values of approximately three. For fully smooth pipe data, the mean value of and C are 0.4137 and 5.039, respectively, and standard deviations are 5 104 and 0.021. Here model Afzal (1) with Colebrook roughness is shown in Figure 5 for data of McKeon et al (2004). The turbulent power law velocity prole and power law skin friction, over a fully smooth wall due to Afzal (2001), are u+ = A(R ) y+
(R )

Uc (R ) = A(R ) R +b u

(7a, b)

where power law index and prefactor A are functions of friction Reynolds number R : (R ) = , ln R A(R ) = 1 exp +C , = 1 C (8)

where , , and B are the calibration parameters. Oliver and Moser (2012) has shown that for the power law results of Afzal (2001a, 2001b) the dependence on R is observed, and the power law is roughly 129 times more probable than the universal power law for fully smooth walls. It is pointed out that equations (2) and (3) were proposed rst by Afzal and co-workers (1973, 1976, 1985) and that equation (4) has also appeared in many sources (Squire 1948, Duncan et al 1960, Afzal 2009) beyond those listed in the original references. For this reason, the labeling of the models in by Oliver and Moser (2012) is misleading. It would be more appropriate to label equation (2) as the Afzal(0) (1973, 1976, 1985) logarithmic law rather than the Buschmann(0) (2003, 2007) logarithmic law, equation (3) as the Afzal(1) (1973, 2

1976, 1985) logarithmic law rather than the Buschmann(1) (2003,2007) logarithmic law [see Afzal & Yajnik (1973, JFM 61 p. 28 Eq 25), Afzal (1976 PoF 19 p. 601 Eq 16a) Afzal & Bush (1985 Proc IAS-A 53(12) p.139 Eq 14b)]. Earlier, Jimenez and Moser (2007) in their Eq(4.6) (page 725), corresponds to Oliver & Moser (2012) Eq (9) (page 7), with E = E1 = 0, which corresponds to simplied relationship due to Afzal et al. (1973, 1976), rather than Buschmann and Gad-el-Hak (2003, 2007). Jimenez and Moser (2007) (pages 724 and 725) stated as , The asymptotic analysis is unusual because, due to the closure problem, the functions appearing in the asymptotic expansion will not be solved for. Instead, only the limiting behaviors of the inner and outer solutions are determined from the asymptotic matching, which can be accomplished without further modelling assumptions (Afzal 1976). Thus, the asymptotic behavior of the mean velocity described here is just a consequence of the well-known multi-scale structure of the wall-layer. To demonstrate the ideas, a simplied version of the analysis is outlined below. A nearly identical result was obtained by Afzal & Yajnik (1973), though they retained the possibility of a non-zero f0 , by allowing F1 to be singular at zero, which is not considered here because it violates our assumptions of the regularity of the functions at zero. The necessary 60 corrections to paper due to Oliver & Moser (2012), arose due to early work of Afzal et al. (1973, 1976, 1985), and are tabulated in Figures 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 and Tables 1, 2 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Table 1: Certain corrections to work of Oliver & Moser 2012, after Afzal et al. . 1973, 1976, 1985.

SN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

P. no 1 1 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 15 16 16 16

L. no 31 35

Fig/Table no Abstract Abstract Table I Table I Table I

4 5 14 35 35 37 Fig 3 9 10 12

Printed in Oliver & Moser 2012 Physics of Fluid 24, 075108 Buschmann and Gad-el-Hak Buschmann and Gad-el-Hak Buschmann(0)log Buschmann(1)log Oberlack log Buschmann and Gad-el-Hak5 Buschmann and Gad-el-Hak model Oberlack4 via a Lie group Buschmann(0) log law Oberlack log law Buschmann(1) log law Buschmann(0),Buschmann(1) and Oberlack 2.Buschmann(0) and Oberlack logarithmic law Buschmann(0) model Buschmann(0) model

Correction needed Afzal Afzal Afzal(0)log Afzal(1)log Squire* log Afzal Afzal model Squire* Afzal(0) log law Squire* log law Afzal(0) log law Afzal(0), Afzal(1) 2.Afzal logarithmic law Afzal(0) model Afzal(0) model

SN

P. L. Fig/Table Printed in Oliver & Moser 2012 Correction no no no Physics of Fluid 24, 075108 needed 16 18 Fig 8 Buschmann(0) logarithmic law Afzal(0) logarithmic law 17 18 8 Buschmann(0) logarithmic law Afzal(0) logarithmic law 18 18 9 Oberlack logarithmic law Squire* logarithmic law 19 18 10 Oberlack Squire* 20 18 10 Buschmann(0) Afzal(0) 21 18 12 Buschmann(0) Afzal(0) 22 18 12 Oberlack Squire* 23 18 13 Buschmann(0) Afzal(0) 24 18 13 3.Buschmann(1) logarithmic law 3.Afzal(1) logarithmic law 25 18 14 Buschmann(1) model Afzal(1) model 26 18 15 Buschmann(0) model Afzal(0) model 27 18 16 Buschmann(0) model Afzal(0) model 28 21 Table III Buschmann(0)log Afzal(0)log 29 21 Table III Buschmann(1)log Afzal(1)log 30 21 Table III Oberlack log Squire* log 31 21 21 Buschmann(0), Buschmann(1) Afzal(0), Afzal (1) 32 21 21 Oberlack model Squire* model 33 21 27 Buschmann(0) or Oberlack Afzal(0) or Squire* 34 21 29 Buschmann(1) log law Afzal(1) log law 35 21 31 Buschmann(1) model Afzal(1) model 36 21 Table IV Buschmann(0)log Afzal(0)log 37 21 Table IV Buschmann(1)log Afzal(1)log 38 21 Table IV Oberlack log Squire* log 39 22 Table V Buschmann(0)log Afzal(0)log 40 22 Table V Buschmann(1)log Afzal(1)log 41 21 Table V Oberlack log Squire* log 42 22 19 Oberlack log model Squire* log model 43 22 19 Oberlack log Squire* log 443 22 20 Buschmann(0)log Afzal(0)log 45 22 (4) 27 Buschmann(1)model Afzal(1)model 46 22 48 Buschmann(1)model Afzal(1)model 47 23 Table VI Buschmann(0)log Afzal(0)log 48 23 Table VI Buschmann(1)log Afzal(1)log 49 23 Table VI Oberlack log Squire* log 50 23 Table VII Buschmann(0)log Afzal(0)log 51 23 Table VII Buschmann(1)log Afzal(1)log 52 23 Table VII Oberlack log Squire* log 53 23 48 Buschmann(1)model Afzal(1)model 54 25 9 Buschmann(1)model Afzal(1)model 55 25 Fig 15 Buschmann(1) logarithmic law Afzal(1) logarithmic law 56 26 Fig 16 Buschmann(1) logarithmic law Afzal(1) logarithmic law 57 26 5 Buschmann(1) Afzal(1) 58 26 12 Buschmann(1)model Afzal(1)model 59 27 2 Buschmann(1)model Afzal(1)model 60 27 10 Buschmann(1)model Afzal(1)model *Squire (1948) by mixing length, Oberlack (2001) by Lie group and Afzal (2009) by Prandtl transposition theorem

Figure 1: Marginal prior PDFs for paramters in the logarithmic overlap models. These include the parameters in the classic, Afzal(0), Afzal(1) eqs. (2) and (3) values of , C, E, 1, C1, B1, E1; and Squire eq. (4) with value of a+ in logarithmic laws. (Correction to authors names cited on page 075108-15, Figure 3, Oliver & Moser 2012).

Figure 2: Posterior and prior PDFs for , C and E in the Afzal(0) eq. (2) logarithmic law for = 0.005. The diagonal entries show the marginal PDFs while the o-diagonal entries show the samples projected onto two-dimensional planes in parameter space. (Correction to authors names cited on page 075108-18, Figure 8, Oliver & Moser 2012).

Figure 3: Posterior and prior PDFs for , C , E , 1 , C1 , B1 and E1 in the Afzal(1) eq. (3) logarithmic law for = 0.005. The diagonal entries show the marginal PDFs while the odiagonal entries show the samples projected onto two-dimensional planes in parameter space. (Correction to authors names cited on page 075108-19, Figure 9, Oliver & Moser 2012).

Figure 4: Posterior and prior PDFs for , C , E , 1 , C1 , B1 and E1 in the Afzal(1) eq. (3) logarithmic law obtained using McKeons Superpipe data. The diagonal entries show the marginal PDFs while the o-diagonal entries show the samples projected onto two-dimensional planes in parameter space. (Correction to authors names cited on page 075108-25, Figure 15, Oliver & Moser 2012).

Figure 5: Posterior and prior PDFs for , C , E , 1 , C1, B1 , E1 , and CCR in the Afzal(1) eq. (6) logarithmic law with Colebrook roughness obtained using McKeons Superpipe data. The diagonal entries show the marginal PDFs while the o-diagonal entries show the samples projected onto two-dimensional planes in parameter space. (Correction to authors names cited on page 075108-26, Figure 16, Oliver & Moser 2012).

Figure 6: Marginal prior PDFs for parameters in the universal and Afzal power laws. (Ref. page 075108-16, Figure 4, Oliver & Moser 2012; and on page 075108-7 in the eq (14) replace B by C ; and read eqs. (12), (13), (14) as u+ = A(R ) (y + )(R ), where = / ln R , A = e [ ()1 + C ], and = 1 C .

10

Figure 7: Posterior and prior PDFs for and and C in the Afzal power law for = 0.005. The diagonal entries show the marginal PDFs while the o-diagonal entries show the samples projected onto two-dimensional planes in parameter space. (Ref page 075108-20, Figure 11, Oliver & Moser 2012).

11

TABLE 2. Summary of overlap layer models, indicating the dening equations and the calibration parameters. Name Eq. no. Calibration parameters. (Correction to authors names cited on page 075108-6, TABLE I, Oliver & Moser 2012). Name Classic log Afzal(0) log Afzal(1) log Squire log Universal power Afzal power Eq. no. (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (14) Calibration parameters , C , C, E , C, E, 1, C1 , B1 , E1 , C, a+ A, a , , B

TABLE 3. Model posterior probability Ppost (Mi |d, M ) for = 0.005. The bold entries indicate the models with the highest posterior plausibility for each data set. (Correction to authors names cited on page 075108-21, TABLE III, Oliver & Moser 2012). Model H200 H50 L200 L50 VL50 01 01 01 Classic log 2.742 10 4.089 10 1.015 10 0. 0 0. 0 Afzal(0) log 2.527 1001 2.450 1001 5.767 1002 1.543 1004 2.884 1004 Afzal(1) log 1.026 1001 4.728 1002 7.734 1001 9.994 1001 9.988 1001 01 Squire log 2.104 10 2.989 1001 4.438 1002 4.839 1004 8.821 1004 Universal power 1.177 1001 2.002 1014 1.771 1004 0. 0 0. 0 02 14 Afzal power 4.245 10 2.068 10 2.291 1002 0. 0 0. 0

TABLE 4. Model posterior probability Ppost (Mi |d, M ) for = 0.005. The bold entries indicate the models with the highest posterior probability for each data set. (Correction to authors names cited on page 075108-21, TABLE IV, Oliver & Moser 2012). Model H200 H50 L200 L50 VL50 Classic log 3.433 1001 1.533 1002 2.160 1001 0. 0 0. 0 01 01 02 Afzal(0) log 2.981 10 3.905 10 6.965 10 0. 0 1.594 1014 02 02 01 1 Afzal(1) log 6.675 10 4.903 10 6.419 10 1.000 10 1.000 1000 Squire log 2.614 1001 5.449 1001 7.235 1002 2.240 1015 5.549 1013 Universal power 2.098 1002 0. 0 9.205 1012 0. 0 0. 0 03 Afzal power 9.479 10 0. 0 3.163 1008 0. 0 0. 0

TABLE 5. Model posterior probability Ppost (Mi |d, M ) for = 0.005. The bold entries indicate the models with the highest posterior probability for each data set. (Correction to authors names cited on page 075108-22, TABLE IV, Oliver & Moser 2012). Model H200 H50 L200 L50 VL50 01 01 01 07 Classic log 2.517 10 5.401 10 1.10810 1.698 10 1.457 1008 01 01 02 02 Afzal(0) log 2.177 10 1.796 10 8.107 10 6.180 10 4.253 1002 01 02 01 01 Afzal(1) log 1.051 10 5.854 10 4.934 10 8.099 10 8.936 1001 Squire log 1.927 1001 2.214 1001 6.431 1002 1.282 1001 6.389 1002 01 04 02 11 Universal power 1.702 10 2.365 10 1.505 10 2.367 10 3.042 1012 Afzal power 6.266 1002 1.062 1004 2.353 1001 0. 0 0. 0

12

TABLE 6. Model log-evidence log (evid ) computed using Princeton Superpipe data. The bold entry indicates the model with the highest evidence. (Correction to authors names cited on page 075108-23, TABLE VI, Oliver & Moser 2012). Smooth 276 274 305 274 1796 1724 Colebrook 387 401 423 388 1863 1133 Nikuradse 354 359 381 353 1796 1602

Classic log Afazl(0) log Afzal(1) log Squire log Universal power Afzal power

TABLE 7. Posterior model probability Ppost (Mi|d, M ) computed using Princeton Superpipe data. The bold entry indicates the model with the highest posterior probability. (Correction to authors names cited on page 075108-23, Table vii, Oliver & Moser 2012). Smooth 0 0 0 0 0 0 Colebrook 0 0 1 0 0 0 Nikuradse 0 0 0 0 0 0

Classic log Afzal(0) log Afzal(1) log Squire log Universal power Afzal power

The models evaluated by Oliver and Moser (2012) are summarized in Table 2. Note that the classic log law (1), the Afzal(0) log law (2), the Squire log law (4) do not depend explicitly on a Reynolds number. These models admit the possibility of a universal law of the wall for all (large enough) Re and types of wall-bounded ows. Alternatively, the Afzal(1) log law (3) and Afzal power law (5) have explicit Re dependence that is inconsistent with universality. Oliver and Moser (2012) has shown that as the standard deviation decreases, the support of the posterior PDF narrows, but the most probable values do not shift dramatically. Thus, the primary eect of changing is to change to what degree the parameters are informed without changing the most likely values. This trend is maintained for all the models. Thus, for brevity, only = 0.005 posterior PDFs are shown for the remainder of the models. Tables 6 and 7 show the log-evidence and the posterior probability. As with the largest boundary layer data set, the Afzal(1) model is strongly preferred by the Superpipe data, having probability that is essentially one. The large separation among the posterior probabilities is due to the fact that there is a large amount of data with very small assumed uncertainty. The model posterior probability results are summarized in Tables 3 to 5, where the prior model probabilities are taken as uniform. For the data sets with a larger Re range, the Afzal(1) model begins to emerge as most plausible. This result indicates that it is advantageous to add additional terms

13

to the classic logarithmic law, including Reynolds number dependence, to reproduce the behavior of the data over a large range of Re and y + . The marginal posteriors for the Afzal(1) parameters are similar to those found without the roughness correction except for C1 (which appears as C1 /+ which changes sign. The mean of CCR is approximately 1 106 , which is slightly larger than found with the classic logarithmic model but still only half of the typical value. Thus, like the classic logarithmic case, the roughness required to t the data is inconsistent with the fully rough regime. Thus, one is forced to the conclusion that the McKeon et al (2004) Superpipe data for 3.04 105 Re 3.57 107 shows a complex Reynolds number dependence that is not fully described by any of the models considered. The model with the most complex Re dependencei.e., the Afzal(1) model with the Colebrook roughness correctionis able to describe the data. For the pipe ow data examined here, the posterior model probability shows that logarithmic forms are strongly preferred over power law forms. As in the boundary layer, the Afzal(1) model is favored. The values of the model parameters from the boundary layer data sets to the pipe ow data examined here, calling into question the universality of the parameters in all the models. Oliver and Moser (2012) have observed that the addition of the Colebrook roughness correction increases the posterior probability of all models, indicating that Re dependence is necessary to t the data; and pointed out that the calibrated Colebrook parameter is inconsistent with data in the fully rough regime, implying that the Colebrook correction cannot be viewed as truth in any meaningful sense. The tradition formulation would not suce and a general formulation is described in next section. Oliver & Moser (2012) investigated power laws (7a) and (8) as a model. That the R dependence is also observed in the power law results, shown in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7, where the Afzal (2001a, 2001b) power law is roughly 129 times more probable than the universal power law for fully smooth walls (see page 21 of Oliver and Moser 2012). Further, Afzal (1997) also presented more general power laws in the wall and wake layers of a turbulent boundary layer, where outer layer behaves like nonlinear wake, and Afzal (2001b) considered linearized outer layer like a shallow wake in a turbulent boundary layer.

2. Analysis for transitional rough surface: log law and power law
Introduction of the concept of roughness Reynolds number Re = Re/ and Roughness friction Reynolds number R = R / by Afzal & Seena (2007) where = exp( U+ ) is the wall roughness scale, U+ is the Clauser/Hama (1954) roughness function have unied the predictions with smooth wall case, and thus Re be termed as Afzal number and R as Afzal friction number. Here Re is the traditional Reynolds Number and R is the friction Reynolds number termed as Karman

14

number, which unied rough wall mean ow to smooth wall mean ow, The roughness scale over rough surface due to Colebrook (1939) monotonic roughness and traditional inectional surface roughness of Nikuradse (1933) are given in Afzal & Seena (2007) &, Afzal et al (2007a, 2013) and due to commercial steel pipe roughness are given by Afzal (2013). Thus fully smooth pipe, channel and boundary layer turbulent ow predictions are extended to transitional rough pipe, channel and boundary layer. It is more appropriate to use rough surface model proposed by Afzal & Seena (2007) where Eq. (2) and (3) are modied u+ = u+ = where z = (y + roughness and
r r )/

1 E ln(z + ) + C + + z 1 E1 ln(z + ) + C1 + B1 z + + + 1 z

(9) (10)

E 1 1 ln(z + ) + C + + + z R

is appropriate inner scale over rough surface, = exp( U+ ) is the surface

is the origin in normal direction of the rough surface. For a rough surface, Eq.
+

(10) in terms of z

for the law of wall has universal constants , C , E , 1 , C1 , B1 , E1 independent U+ if the roughness function. The skin friction law corresponding

of surface roughness, is more appropriate than Eqs (5) or (6) in terms of y+ where , C , E , 1 , C1 , B1 , E1 are of fully smooth and to higher order terms in relation (10) becomes Uc 1 1 = ln R + C + D + u R m=1 and for fully smooth pipe/channel 1 and R R . The turbulent ow over transitional rough surface Afzal (2007b) proposed a power law velocity prole and power law skin friction model. In this model, the appropriate Reynolds number is taken to be the roughness friction Reynolds number (R = R /), where power laws velocity distribution and friction factor laws are as follows: u+ = A(R) z+
(R )

1 ln R + Cm + Dm m

(11)

Uc (R ) = A(R ) R + b u

(12)

and the power law index and prefactor A functions become (R ) = ln R A(R ) = 1 exp +C , = 1 C (13)

which for smooth surface correspond to Eqs. (7) and (8). The power law velocity prole (12a) and power law friction factor power law (12b) for a transitional rough surface and are universal solution, explicitly independent of transitional pipe roughness. Uniformly valid velocity prole above sublayer becomes u = A z+ + b (Y ) u (14)

The function (Y ) is the power law wake function with the boundary conditions (0) = 0 and (1) = 1. The power law velocity prole (14) may be integrated over entire cross-section (say a pipe

15

of radius ) to obtain the bulk averaged velocity Ub =2 u where bb = 2b as =8 2A R + bb (1 + )(2 + )


1 0 (1 Y )(Y )dY . 0

(1 Y ) u+ dY = R

2A + bb (1 + )(2 + )

(15)

The friction factor power law from Eq. (15) may also be expressed
2

(16)

In fully developed turbulent pipe ow, the outer wake is weak (bb 0) and the expression (16) is simplied as =8 21 (1 + )(2 + ) A
2/(1+) 2/(1+)

Re

(17)

where n = 2/(1 + ) is the roughness friction Reynolds number index of friction factor power law. For fully smooth pipe = 1 and R = R and fully rough ows = k+ and R = /(k), and in transitional pipes roughness R R /(k). Further, for specic value = 1/7 or n = 1/4 the power law friction factor (17) for transitional rough pipes become = 0.3164 Re
1/4

= 0.3164

Re

1/4

(18)

in a domain 3 103 < Re < 2 105 . Here the numerical constant 0.3194 is universal for all types of roughness; rst proposed by Blasius (1908) for fully smooth pipe ( = 1). The power law velocity prole (14) may be integrated over entire cross-section of a channel of semi depth , to obtain the bulk averaged velocity Ub =2 u where bb = 2b
1 0 (Y )dY . 0

u+ dY = R

2A + bb (1 + )

(19)

The friction factor power law may also be expressed as =8 2A R + bb (1 + )


2

(20)

In fully developed turbulent pipe ow, the outer wake is weak (bb 0) and the expression (20) is simplied as =8 2 A (1 + )
2/(1+)

Re

2/(1+)

(21)

For fully smooth channel = 1 and Re = Re and fully rough channel = k+ (where = exp[(B BF )] is Colebrook type constant), and R = /(k), and in transitional rough channel R R /(k). Further, for specic value = 1/7 or n = 1/4 the power law friction factor (20) for transitional rough pipes become = 0.292 Re
1/4

= 0.292

Re

1/4

(22)

16

valid in a domain 6 103 < Re < 6 105 . Here numerical constant 0.292 is adopted from Dean (1956) for 1/4-power law for fully smooth channel ( = 1).

3. The Prandtl (1938) transposition (PT) theorem: If [u(x, y, t), v(x, y, t)] is a solution of the boundary-layer equations then [U(x, z, t), V(x, z, t)] is also a solution, where z = y + a(x, t), U (x, z, t) = u(x, y, t) and V (x, z, t) = v (x, y, t) a/t u(x, y, t)a(x, t)/x for arbitrary a = a(x, t). The Prandtl transport theorem implies that if normal ordinate y is shifted to y + a by shift of origin by distance a, then velocity u(y ) under transformation yields the velocity U (y + a) at shifted location. Afzal (2009) considered geostrophic Ekman layer and proposed his equations (31a,b) for velocity distribution due to shift of origin. In the power law velocity, Prandtl transport theorem, in the overlap region, for the law of wall and velocity defect law yield U = Ci (z + + a ) u (23) (24)
+ )/, r

U = Co (Y + a ) , Co = Ci R u and skin friction law remains same as Uc /u = A( + /) + B . Here z + = (y + + a+ = au / , Y = (y +


r )/

a = a+ /,

and a = a/ .

In the present case of log laws, Prandtl transport theorem, in the overlap region, for the law of wall and velocity defect law yield U 1 = ln(z + + a ) + C u (25)

U Uc 1 = ln(Y + a ) D (26) u and the skin friction law remains same as Uc /u = 1 ln( + /) + C + D. The next order term region, for the law of wall and velocity defect law yield U 1 E = ln(z + + a ) + C + + u z + a U Uc 1 = ln(Y + a ) D + (Y + a )F u + The linearizing (27) for large z yields U 1 E + 1 a+ = ln z + + C + u z+ The above equations for fully smooth surface = 1, z + = y + and viz Lie group analysis, was adopted by Oliver and Moser (2012).
r

(27) (28)

(29) = 0 and the equation E = 0

yield relation proposed by Square (1948) (also described in Duncan et al. 1960) and Oberlack (2001)

17

4. Conclusions
1. That Oliver and Moser (2012) equation number (2,OM(8)) be termed as Afzal(0) & Squire logarithmic law instead of Buschmann(0) & Oberlack logarithmic law; and their equation number (3,OM(9)) be also termed as Afzal(1) logarithmic law instead of Buschmann(1) logarithmic law. 2. That Afzal(1) model emerges as most plausible. This also result indicates that it is advantageous to add additional terms to the classic logarithmic law, including Reynolds number dependence, to reproduce the behavior of the data over a large range of Re and y+ . Not only do these terms improve the t between the model and the data some improvement is inevitablethe improvement is enough to make the model more probable according to Bayes theorem. 3. That model of Afzal(1) found good for largest boundary layer data set, ia also is strongly preferred by the Superpipe data, having probability that is essentially one. Thus for the boundary layer and pipe ow data the posterior model probability shows that Afzal(1) logarithmic forms are strongly preferred. 4. The model with the most complex Re dependence i.e., the Afzal(1) model with the Colebrook roughness correctionis able to best describe the data. 5. In the power law results of Afzal (2001a, 2001b) dependence on R is observed. and the power law is roughly 129 times more probable than the universal power law for fully smooth walls. 6. That the corrections by Afzal (2012) was unduly declined form publication by John Kim Editor Physics of Fluids where as several analogous Erratum; say, Molla, David & Kuhn (2013), published in same journal, by same Editor Physics of Fluids.

Acknowledgment: Dr Todd Oliver is thanked for his message by email dated November 9, 2012 9:08 PM: Dear Prof. Afzal, Thank you for your interest in our work, and thank you for including your earlier references. Things are very hectic for me right now, so it may take a bit of time to resolve things, but I am consulting with Dr. Moser and the journal editor to decide how to proceed. Best, Todd Oliver.

18

References
Afzal, N. 1976 Millikans argument at moderately large Reynolds numbers. Physics of Fluids, 19, 600-602. Afzal, N. 1997 Power laws in the wall and wake layers of a turbulent boundary layer. pp 805 - 808 in Proc 7 Asian Congress of Fluid Mechanics at Chennai. Allied Publisher New Delhi. Online https://sites.google.com/site/noorafzal/publications. Afzal, N. 2001 Power law and log law velocity proles in turbulent boundary-layer ow: Equivalent relations at large Reynolds number. Acta Mechanica, 151, 195-216. Afzal, N. 2001 Power and log laws velocity proles in fully developed turbulent pipe ows: Equivalent relations at large Reynolds numbers. Acta Mechanica, 151, 171-183. Afzal, N. 2007a Friction factor directly from transitional rough pipes. ASME J. Fluid Engineering, 129 (10), 1255-1267. Afzal, N. 2007b Power law velocity prole in turbulent boundary layers on transitional rough wall. ASME J. Fluid Engineering, 129(8), 1083-1100. Afzal, N. 2009 Neutrally stratied turbulent Ekman boundary layer: universal similarity for transitional rough surface. Boundary Layer Meteorology, 132, 241-259. Afzal, N. 2012 Comments on Accounting for uncertainty in the analysis of overlap layer mean velocity models (Manuscript PF#12-1526-C, November 28, 2012. Declined publication in Physics of Fluids by John Kim Editor Physics of Fluids). Afzal, N. 2013 Roughness eects of commercial steel pipe in turbulent ow: Universal scaling. Canadian J. Civil Engineering, 40(2), 188-193. Afzal, N. and Bush, W.B. 1985 A three layer asymptotic analysis of turbulent channel. Indian Academy of Sciences: Series A, 53(12), 640-642. Afzal, N. and Yajnik, K. 1973 Analysis of turbulent pipe and channel ows at moderately large Reynolds number. J. Fluid Mechanics, 61, 23-31. Afzal, N. and Seena, A. 2007 Alternate scales for turbulent ow in transitional rough pipes: Universal log laws. ASME J. Fluid Engineering, 129 (1), 80-90. Afzal, N., Seena, A. and Bushra, A. 2013 Eects of machined surface roughness on high Reynolds number turbulent pipe ow: Universal scaling. Journal of Hydro-environment Research, IAHR 7, pp. 81-90. Buschmann, M.H. and Gad-el-Hak, M. 2003 Generalized logarithmic law and its consequences. AIAA Journal 41 (1), 40-48. Buschmann, M.H. and Gad-el-Hak, M. 2007 Recent developments in scaling of wall-bounded ows. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 42, 419-467. Clauser, F.H. 1954 Turbulent boundary layers in adverse pressure gradients. J. Aeronautical Sciences, 21, 91-105.

19

Colebrook, C. F. 1939 Turbulent ow in pipes, with particular reference to the transitional region between smooth and rough wall laws. J. Institution of Civil Engineers, 11, 133-156. Dean, R. B. 1978 Reynolds number dependence of skin friction and other bulk ow variables in two-dimensional rectangular duct ows. J. Fluids Eng.*, 100, 215223. Duncan, W.J., Thom, A.and Young, A. 1960 Mechanics of Fluids. Edward Arnold UK. Hama, F R. 1954 Boundary-layer characteristics for smooth and rough surfaces. Trans SNAME, 62, 333-358. Jimenez, J. and Moser, R.D. 2007 What are we learning from simulating wall turbulence?. Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. A 365, 715732. Molla, M.M., Wang, B. and David C. S. Kuhn, D.C.M. 2013 Erratum: Numerical study of pulsatile channel ows undergoing transition triggered by a modelled stenosis [Phys. Fluids 24, 121901 (2012)],Physics of Fluids, 25, 049901. McKeon, B.J., J. Li, Jiang, W., Morrison, J.F. and Smits, A.J. 2004 Further observations on the mean velocity distribution in fully developed pipe ow, J. Fluid Mech. 501, 135147. Nikuradse, J. 1933 Laws of ow in rough pipe. VI, Forchungsheft N-361 (NACA TM 1292, 1950). Oberlack, M. 2001 A unied approach for symmetries in plane parallel turbulent shear ows. J. Fluid Mech., 427, 299 - 328 Oliver, T.A. and Moser, R.D. 2012 Accounting for uncertainty in the analysis of overlap layer mean velocity models. Physics of Fluids, 24, 075108. Prandtl, L. 1938 Aur Berechung der Grenzchichten, ZAMM, 18, p. 77; also in: Laminar Boundary Layers, L. Rosenhead, ed., Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1963, p. 211. Squire, H.B. 1948 Reconsideration of the theory of free turbulence. Philosophical Magazine, 39(288), 16-19.

20