0
ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL PAPERS

The Relationship Between Frictional Resistance and Roughness for Surfaces Smoothed by Sanding

[+] Author and Article Information
Michael P. Schultz

Department of Naval Architecture & Ocean Engineering, United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD 21402

J. Fluids Eng 124(2), 492-499 (May 28, 2002) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.1459073 History: Received August 14, 2001; Revised December 31, 2001; Online May 28, 2002
Copyright © 2002 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Nikuradse, J., 1933, “Laws of Flow in Rough Pipes,” NACA Technical Memorandum 1292.
Hama,  F. R., 1954, “Boundary-Layer Characteristics for Rough and Smooth Surfaces,” Transactions SNAME, 62, pp. 333–351.
Ligrani,  P. M., and Moffat,  R. J., 1986, “Structure of Transitionally Rough and Fully Rough Turbulent Boundary Layers,” J. Fluid Mech., 162, pp. 69–98.
Krogstad,  P. Å., and Antonia,  R. A., 1992, “Comparison Between Rough-and Smooth-Wall Turbulent Boundary Layers,” J. Fluid Mech., 245, pp. 599–617.
Raupach,  M. R., Antonia,  R. A., and Rajagopalan,  S., 1991, “Rough-Wall Turbulent Boundary Layers,” Appl. Mech. Rev., 44, No. 1, 1991, pp. 1–25.
Grigson,  C. W. B., 1992, “Drag Losses of New Ships Caused by Hull Finish,” J. Ship Res., 36, No. 2, pp. 182–196.
Townsin,  R. L., Byrne,  D., Svensen,  T. E., and Milne,  A., 1981, “Estimating the Technical and Economic Penalties of Hull and Propeller Roughness,” Transactions SNAME, 89, pp. 295–318.
Musker,  A. J., 1980–1981, “Universal Roughness Functions for Naturally-Occurring Surfaces,” Trans. Can. Soc. Mech. Eng., 1, pp. 1–6.
Lewkowicz, A. K., and Musker, A. J., 1978, “The Surface Roughness on Ship Hulls: Interaction in the Viscous Sublayer,” Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ship Viscous Resistance-SSPA Goteborg, Sweden.
Proceedings of the RINA International Workshop on Marine Roughness and Drag, 1990, London, UK.
Clauser,  F. H., 1954, “Turbulent Boundary Layers in Adverse Pressure Gradients,” J. Aeronaut. Sci., 21, pp. 91–108.
Acharya,  M., Bornstein,  J., and Escudier,  M. P., 1986, “Turbulent Boundary Layers on Rough Surfaces,” Exp. Fluids, 4, pp. 33–47.
Perry,  A. E., and Li,  J. D., 1990, “Experimental Support for the Attached-Eddy Hypothesis in Zero-Pressure Gradient Turbulent Boundary Layers,” J. Fluid Mech., 218, pp. 405–438.
Colebrook,  C. F., 1939, “Turbulent Flow in Pipes with Particular Reference to the Transition between Smooth and Rough Pipe Laws,” Journal of Civil Engineers, 11, pp. 133–157.
Bradshaw,  P., 2000, “A Note on ‘Critical Roughness Height’ and ‘Transitional Roughness’,” Phys. Fluids, 12, pp. 1611–1614.
Granville, P. S., 1978, “Similarity-Law Characterization Methods for Arbitrary Hydrodynamic Roughnesses,” David Taylor Naval Ship R&D Center Report 78-SPD-815-01.
Betterman,  R. J., 1966, “Contribution a L’etude de la Convection Forcee Turbulente le Long de Plaques Rugueuses,” Int. J. Heat Mass Transf., 9, pp. 153–164.
Dvorak,  F. A., 1969, “Calculation Turbulent Boundary Layers on Rough Surfaces in Pressure Gradient,” AIAA J., 7, pp. 1752–1759.
Koch,  C. C., and Smith,  L. H., 1976, “Loss Sources and Magnitudes in Axial-Flow Compressors,” ASME J. Eng. Power, 98, pp. 411–424.
Townsin, R. L. and Dey, S. K., 1990, “The Correlation of Roughness Drag with Surface Characteristics,” Proceedings of the RINA International Workshop on Marine Roughness and Drag, London, UK.
Granville,  P. S., 1958, “The Frictional Resistance and Turbulent Boundary Layer of Rough Surfaces,” J. Ship Res., 1, pp. 52–74.
Anon, 1981, “United States Naval Academy Hydromechanics Laboratory,” Catalog of Facilities from the Proceedings of the 16th International Towing Tank Conference, Leningrad, USSR.
Moffat,  R. J., 1988, “Describing the Uncertainties in Experimental Results,” Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci., 1, pp. 3–17.
Coleman,  H. W., and Steele,  W. G., 1995, “Engineering Application of Experimental Uncertainty Analysis,” AIAA J., 33, No. 10, pp. 1888–1896.
Schoenherr,  K. E., 1932, “Resistances of Flat Surfaces Moving Through a Fluid,” Transactions SNAME, 40, pp. 279–313.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Schematic of the flat plate test fixture
Grahic Jump Location
Surface waveforms for (a) the unsanded specimen, (b) the 60-grit specimen, (c) the 120-grit specimen, (d) the 220-grit specimen, (e) the 600-grit specimen, and (f ) the polished specimen. (Uncertainty in the y-direction ±1 μm, x- and z-directions ±5 μm)
Grahic Jump Location
Plan view of the surface waveform for (a) the unsanded specimen, (b) the 60-grit specimen, (c) the 120-grit specimen, and (d) the 220-grit specimen. (Uncertainty in the y-direction ±1 μm, x- and z-directions ±5 μm)
Grahic Jump Location
The effect of sanding on the roughness statistics of the unfiltered profiles. (Error bars represent the 95% confidence limits for the precision uncertainty.)
Grahic Jump Location
Overall frictional resistance coefficient versus Reynolds number for all the specimens. (Precision uncertainty ≤±0.3% at all Reynolds numbers; overall precision and bias ranges from ±1.4% at highest Reynolds number to ±4.8% at lowest Reynolds number.)
Grahic Jump Location
Roughness function for all specimens. (Overall uncertainty ±0.1 in ΔU+)

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In