Weekly Online Assignment

Reg. #. _________11359____________Name: _______________Shoaib shah__________________

Program: ____B.Sc. Civil Technology_______________ Semester: 3rd semester_ (2020) ______

Course Code & Title: _______________ Fluid mechanics_______________________________

Topic(s): _________ introduction and history of fluid mechanics

Week: 31, 10, 2020 ____ Submitted Date: _____3-11-2020_______________

Submitted to (Teacher’s Name): ________________ Faizan halim________________________

To be filled by concerned Faculty Member:

Marks Obtained ______________ Out of ______________

Remarks: __________________________________________
 FLUID MECHANICS
Fluid mechanics deals with the study of all fluids under static and dynamic
situations. Fluid mechanics is a branch of continuous mechanics which deals
with a relationship between forces, motions, and statical conditions in a
continuous material. This study area deals with many and diversified
problems such as surface tension, fluid statics, flow in enclose bodies, or
flow round bodies (solid or otherwise), flow stability, etc. In fact, almost any
action a person is doing involves some kind of a fluid mechanics problem.
Furthermore, the boundary between the solid mechanics and fluid
mechanics is some kind of gray shed and not a sharp distinction For
example, glass appears as a solid material, but a closer look reveals that the
glass is a liquid with a large viscosity. A proof of the glass ``liquidity'' is the
change of the glass thickness in high windows in European Churches after
hundred years. The bottom part of the glass is thicker than the top part.
Materials like sand (some call it quick sand) and grains should be treated as
liquids. It is known that these materials have the ability to drown people.
Even material such as aluminum just below the mushy zone also behaves as
a liquid similarly to butter. Furthermore, material particles that ``behaves'' as
solid mixed with liquid creates a mixture After it was established that the
boundaries of fluid mechanics aren't sharp, most of the discussion in this
book is limited to simple and (mostly) Newtonian (sometimes power fluids)
fluids which will be defined later.

The fluid mechanics study involve many fields that have no clear
boundaries between them. Researchers distinguish between orderly flow
and chaotic flow as the laminar flow and the turbulent flow. The fluid
mechanics can also be distinguish between a single phase flow and
multiphase flow (flow made more than one phase or single distinguishable
material). The last boundary (as all the boundaries in fluid mechanics) isn't
sharp because fluid can go through a phase change (condensation or
evaporation) in the middle or during the flow and switch from a single
phase flow to a multi-phase flow. Moreover, flow with two phases (or
materials) can be treated as a single phase (for example, air with dust
particle).

After it was made clear that the boundaries of fluid mechanics aren't sharp,
the study must make arbitrary boundaries between fields. Then the
dimensional analysis can be used explain why in certain cases one
distinguish area/principle is more relevant than the other and some effects
can be neglected. Or, when a general model is need because more
parameters are effecting the situation. It is this author's personal experience
that the knowledge and ability to know in what area the situation lay is one
of the main problems. For example, engineers in software company EKK
Inc.,) analyzed a flow of a complete still liquid assuming a complex
turbulent flow model. Such absurd analysis are common among engineers
who do not know which model can be applied. Thus, one of the main goals
of this book is to explain what model should be applied. Before dealing
with the boundaries, the simplified private cases must be explained.

There are two main approaches of presenting an introduction of fluid

mechanics materials. The first approach introduces the fluid kinematic and
then the basic governing equations, to be followed by stability, turbulence,
boundary layer the second approach deals with the Integral Analysis to be
followed with Differential Analysis, and continue with Empirical Analysis.
These two approaches pose a dilemma to anyone who writes an
introductory book for the fluid mechanics. These two approaches have
justifications and positive points. Reviewing many books on fluid mechanics
made it clear, there isn't a clear winner. This book attempts to find a hybrid
approach in which the kinematic is presented first (aside to standard initial
four chapters) follow by Integral analysis and continued by Differential
analysis. The ideal flow (frictionless flow) should be expanded compared to
the regular treatment. This book is unique in providing chapter on
multiphase flow. Naturally, chapters on open channel flow (as a sub class of
the multiphase flow) and compressible flow (with the latest developments)
are provided.
 BRIEF HISTORY
The need to have some understanding of fluid mechanics started with the
need to obtain water supply. For example, people realized that wells have
to be dug and crude pumping devices need to be constructed. Later, a
large population created a need to solve waste (sewage) and some basic
understanding was created. At some point, people realized that water can
be used to move things and provide power. When cities increased to a
larger size, aqueducts were constructed. These aqueducts reached their
greatest size and grandeur in those of the City of Rome and China.

Yet, almost all knowledge of the ancients can be summarized as application

of instincts, with the exception Archimedes (250 B.C.) on the principles of
buoyancy. For example, larger tunnels built for a larger water supply, etc.
There were no calculations even with the great need for water supply and
transportation. The first progress in fluid mechanics was made by Leonardo
Da Vinci (1452-1519) who built the first chambered canal lock near Milan.
He also made several attempts to study the flight (birds) and developed
some concepts on the origin of the forces. After his initial work, the
knowledge of fluid mechanics (hydraulic) increasingly gained speed by the
contributions of Galileo, Torricelli, Euler, Newton, Bernoulli family, and
D'Alembert. At that stage theory and experiments had some discrepancy.
This fact was acknowledged by D'Alembert who stated that, ``the theory of
fluids must necessarily be based upon experiment.'' For example the
concept of ideal liquid that leads to motion with no resistance, conflicts
with the reality.

This discrepancy between theory and practice is called the ``D'Alembert

paradox'' and serves to demonstrate the limitations of theory alone in
solving fluid problems. As in thermodynamics, two different of school of
thoughts were created: the first believed that the solution will come from
theoretical aspect alone, and the second believed that solution is the pure
practical (experimental) aspect of fluid mechanics. On the theoretical side,
considerable contribution were made by Euler, La Grange, Helmholtz,
Kirchhoff, Rayleigh, Rankine, and Kelvin. On the ``experimental'' side, mainly
in pipes and open channels area, were Brahms, Bossut, Chezy, Dubuat,
Fabre, Coulomb, Dupuit, d'Aubisson, Hagen, and Poisseuille. In the middle
of the nineteen century, first Navier in the molecular level and later Stokes
from continuous point of view succeeded in creating governing equations
for real fluid motion. Thus, creating a matching between the two school of
thoughts: experimental and theoretical. But, as in thermodynamics, people
cannot relinquish control. As results it created today ``strange'' names:
Hydrodynamics, Hydraulics, Gas Dynamics, and Aeronautics.

The Navier-Stokes equations, which describes the flow (or even Euler

equations), were considered unsolvable during the mid-nineteen century
because of the high complexity. This problem led to two consequences.
Theoreticians tried to simplify the equations and arrive at approximated
solutions representing specific cases. Examples of such work are Hermann
von Helmholtz's concept of vortexes (1858), Lanchester's concept of
circulatory flow (1894), and the Kutta–Joukowski circulation theory of lift
(1906). The experimentalists, at the same time proposed many correlations
to many fluid mechanics problems, for example, resistance by Darcy,
Weisbach, Fanning, Ganguillet, and Manning. The obvious happened
without theoretical guidance, the empirical formulas generated by fitting
curves to experimental data (even sometime merely presenting the results
in tabular form) resulting in formulas that the relationship between the
physics and properties made very little sense.

At the end of the twenty century, the demand for vigorous scientific
knowledge that can be applied to various liquids as opposed to formula for
every fluid was created by the expansion of many industries. This demand
coupled with new several novel concepts like the theoretical and
experimental researches of Reynolds, the development of dimensional
analysis by Rayleigh, and Froude's idea of the use of models change
the science of the fluid mechanics. Perhaps the most radical concept that
effects the fluid mechanics is of Prandtl's idea of boundary layer which is a
combination of the modeling and dimensional analysis that leads to
modern fluid mechanics. Therefore, many call Prandtl as the father of
modern fluid mechanics. This concept leads to mathematical basis for many
approximations. Thus, Prandtl and his students Blasius, von Karman, Meyer,
and Blasius and several other individuals as Nikuradse, Rose, Taylor,
Bhuckingham, Stanton, and many others, transformed the fluid mechanics
to today modern science.

While the understanding of the fundamentals did not change much, after
World War Two, the way how it was calculated changed. The introduction
of the computers during the 60s and much more powerful personal
computer has changed the field. There are many open source programs
that can analyze many fluid mechanics situations. Today many problems
can be analyzed by using the numerical tools and provide reasonable
results. These programs in many cases can capture all the appropriate
parameters and adequately provide a reasonable description of the physics.
However, there are many other cases that numerical analysis cannot
provide any meaningful result (trends). For example, no weather prediction
program can produce good engineering quality results (where the snow will
fall within 50 kilometers accuracy. Building a car with this accuracy is a
disaster). In the best scenario, these programs are as good as the input
provided. Thus, assuming turbulent flow for still flow simply provides
erroneous results (see for example, EKK, Inc).