Running head: COMPUTATIONAL LAMINAR BOUNDARY LAYER ANALYSIS 1

Computational Laminar Boundary Layer Analysis

Berkay Soyluoğlu, Bilgehan Semih İslam, Emircan Kılıçkaya

Istanbul Technical University

Author Note

This paper is dedicated to İsmail Beyazıt’s fifth group (IB-B5).

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Berkay Soyluoğlu,
Faculty of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Istanbul Technical University, Maslak 34469.
E-mail: soyluoglu16@itu.edu.tr
COMPUTATIONAL LAMINAR BOUNDARY LAYER ANALYSIS 2

Computational Laminar Boundary Layer Analysis

Preliminary Conditions

Firstly, the flow is steady, that is, ∂/∂t = 0. Another aspect is that the
temperature is considered constant due to the thermally tranquil state of air. This trait
will be an essential concept in later section, considering it affects the kinematic viscosity
of air. The pressure of air is assumed as 760 mmHg (101325 Pa). Kinematic viscosity is
µ RT µ
defined as ν = ρ
= P
= 2.1849 × 10−5 m2 /sat 292.15 K. Another essential aspect
regarding the flow is that the flow is parallel past a flat plate. A couple of assumptions
should be made to avoid any conjectures. One of which is that while doing the
momentum calculations pressure is assumed to be constant. Furthermore, flow is
incompressible due to it being around 10 m/s which is way below the speed of sound at
19◦ C.

Theoretical Analysis

First of all, flow’s characteristic should be determined. The results will vary
whether the flow is laminar or turbulent. For example, for a turbulent flow the
u y 1/7
boundary layer’s velocity profile should be set to U
= δ(x)
= Y 1/7 for Y ≤ 1and
u = U for Y > 1. This formula is common among experimentations for plates; however,
for very narrow experiments this approximation fails to have a physical meaning since
∂u
∂y
goes to infinity as you get close to the point y = 0. The flow’s trait can be
Vx
determined based on the Reynolds number: Re = ν
. Reynolds number is calculated as
follows: (0.1301, 0.2451, 6.2335, 0.0623, 0.1174) × 106 . This shows that the flows are
all laminar because Reynolds number is lower than the threshold value that is 5 × 105 .

Momentum Equation for a Flat Plate’s Boundary Layer

Let’s establish the momentum equation for a laminar flow:

Z Z
−D = ρU (−U ) dA − ρu2 dA
COMPUTATIONAL LAMINAR BOUNDARY LAYER ANALYSIS 3

This equation can be arranged to have a more clear statement.

Zδ
2
D = ρU bh − ρb u2 dy
0

bis the width of a plate. Let’s rearrange the equation further to get a simpler result.
Zδ
D = ρb u(U − u) dy
0

Rδ
since U h = u dy. We can implement the momentum thickness, that is
0
R∞ u
Θ= U
(1 − u ) dy,
U
in this rearranged momentum equation. This results in this
0
following equation:
dΘ
τw = ρU 2 (1)
dx
dD
τ is the wall’s shear stress and defined as dx
= bτw . Equation 1 gives flexibility to
approximate the wall’s shear stress, however Equation 1 requires an approximated
velocity profile ın order to achieve satisfying outcomes, nevertheless a rough velocity
profile would be sufficient. Correlation between different concepts such as momentum
thickness, shear stress and velocity profile can be obtained by combining their
respective equations. Another way to obtain τw is to define a new function, i.e.,
u u
g(x) = U
for 0 ≤ Y ≤ 1and U
= 1for Y > 1along with a dimensionless parameter
y
Y = δ(x)
. Therefore, the momentum equation can be written as

Zδ Z1
2
D = ρb u(U − u) dy = ρbU δ(x) g(Y )[1 − g(Y )] dY = ρbU 2 C1 (2)
0 0

where C1 is a dimensionless parameter that is constant. Also, for laminar flow

∂u  µU dg  µU
 
τw = µ  = = C2 (3)
∂y y=0 δ(x) dY y=0 δ(x)


dg 
where C1 is a dimensionless parameter that is constant that is C2 = dY Y =0
 . The
following equation is obtained by combining Equations 2 and 3:

µC2
δ(x)dδ(x) = dx
ρU C1

This equation can be integrated to give the result of

q
δ(x) 2C2 /C1
= √ (4)
x Rex
COMPUTATIONAL LAMINAR BOUNDARY LAYER ANALYSIS 4

We obtain the following shear stress equation by substituting Equation 4 into Equation
3:
√
C1 C2 3/2 ρµ
τw = µ (5)
2 x
Equations 4 and 5 are yet another approximated result, nonetheless approximated
velocity profile is not required. In spite of this, constants C1 and C2 are still obligated to
be found. Even though Equation 4 gives an accurate approximation for boundary layer
thickness, certain constant have to be dealt with and this particular portion would be
beyond the scope of this paper. Hence, the equations should be set aside and a detailed
velocity profile must be established by using a technique called as Prandtl/Blasius
Solution if desired.

Blasius’ Boundary Layer Solution

In 1908, Paul Richard Heinrich Blasius, who is one of the first students of Ludwig
Prandtl, found an accurate approximation for a laminar flow past a flat plate that is
parallel to the same flow. Firstly, he introduced a self-similar variable, i.e.,
q
y U
η= g(x)
=y νx
for this problem because in reality, g(x) ∼ ( 2νx
U
)1/2 . Stream function of
a flow can be interpreted as either ∂ψ = u∂y or ∂ψ = −v∂x. If the self-similar variables
were to be implemented in a stream function, following equation would be found:
Zy Zη
ψ= u dy = U g(x)f 0 (η) dη = U g(x)f (η)
0 0

where u = U f 0 (η) and f (0) = 0. As a further matter, ∂u/∂y, ∂u/∂x and ∂ 2 u/∂y 2 can
be determined with ease along with speed parameters.

u = U f 0 (η) (6)
∂ψ
v=− = U (ηf 0 (η) − f (η))g(x) (7)
∂x
∂u ∂η yg(x)0 ηg(x)0
= U f 00 (η) = U f 00 (η) = U f 00
(η) (8)
∂x ∂x g(x)2 g(x)
00
∂u ∂η U f (η)
= U f 00 (η) = (9)
∂y ∂y g(x)
2 000
∂ u f (η)
2
=U (10)
∂y g(x)2
COMPUTATIONAL LAMINAR BOUNDARY LAYER ANALYSIS 5

Moreover, Navier-Stokes and continuity equations are simplified as

∂u ∂v
+ =0 (11)
∂x ∂y
∂u ∂v ∂ 2u
u +v =ν 2 (12)
∂x ∂y ∂y

Equations 6-10 can be implemented in the Navier-Stokes, which is Equation 12,

equation.

U f 00 (η) ηg(x)0 f 000 (η)

U f 0 (η) + U (ηf 0 (η) − f (η))g(x)U f 00 (η) =U
g(x) g(x) g(x)2

This equation can be further simplified to this order:

f 000 (η) + f (η)f 00 (η) = 0 (13)

Boundary layer condition for Equation 13 would result in the following statements:
f (0) = f 0 (0) = 0 and f 0 (1) = ∞ while f 00 (0) = 0.4696 due to the numerical calculations
made by means of the code in Appendix A entitled "ODE Approximation". The
simplification process has a specific feature that is making g(x)g 0 (x) constant. g(x)g 0 (x)
ν
is assumed to be U
in order to obtain an ordinary differential equation. Integration of
g 2 (x)
g(x)g 0 (x) results in 2
= xν
U
+ d. d is set to zero to avoid any analytical disturbance
that may arise. One good outcome is that U f 00 x(η) becomes becomes undefined. This
leads to velocity changing from U∞ to zero after the leading edge, In this case the the
leading edge is at the the point x = 0. So, g(x) can be singled out from this point on.
New parameters we got from the latter calculations are as follows:
s
2xν
g(x) =
U
y
η=q
2xν/U

Now that it is proven that Equation 13 indicates an ordinary differential equation,

Runge-Kutta method can be implemented to find the approximated solution of such
equation because as of today, no analytical solution has been found. The code regarding
the computational numerical analysis can be found in Appendix A. The code output is
u
plotted as Figure 1. It is clear that U
= 0.99 at η ≈ 3.5. This point indicates that the
COMPUTATIONAL LAMINAR BOUNDARY LAYER ANALYSIS 6

boundary layer thickness is 99%, therefore some of the equations have to be rearranged:
1/2
2xν 5x

δ(x) ≈ 3.5 ≈√
U Rex
Velocity profiles is obtainable via the formulas that are already established. Equation 6
and Equation 14 is going to be the foundation of Figure 2. Figure 2 is the visualization
of velocity profiles on a flat plate. Cyan rectangle in Figure 2 represents a flat plate.
s
xν
y = ηδ(x) = η (14)
U∞
gives the magnitude of velocity relative to the distance. Other than that, normal
velocity is also plotted by evaluating Equation 7 as Figure B1 in Appendix B,
nevertheless it is not entirely necessary for this paper to be explicit.

Turbulent Boundary Layer Analysis

If it is assumed to be a turbulent flow, certain parameters have to be changed in

order to maintain a healthy aerodynamic system. Correlation between different
formulas would bring about the desired variables. Momentum thickness is defined as
Z∞
u u
Θ= (1 − )dy
U U
0
y
Let’s use the same technique, i.e., Y = δ(x)
we used in Equation 2 on the momentum
thickness.
Z 1
7
Θ = δ(x) Y 1/7 (1 − Y 1/7 )dY = δ(x) (15)
0 72
Equation 15 can be substituted into Equation 1 in order to get the variable δ(x).
1/5
ν

δ(x) = 0.37 x4/5 (16)
U
Equation 16 can be substituted into Equation 14 to get access to velocity profiles.
Visualization of such profile can be viewed in Figure 3. Cyan rectangle in Figure 3 also
represents a flat plate similar to the case in Figure 2. Figure 2 and Figure 3 is not very
polished and should be studied with caution. This weird distortion is caused by poor
coding, however the output brings about accurate results. The velocity profiles states
that velocity is constant after a certain distance from the plate in Figure 2. The
velocity profiles in Figure 3 becomes constant before reaching the boundary layer. This
will be discussed in the latter sections of this paper.
COMPUTATIONAL LAMINAR BOUNDARY LAYER ANALYSIS 7

Experimentation

Experimentation Setup

A flat plate was placed on the flow bench to perform this experiment. A probe
close to the surface was positioned to locate velocities at points close to this plate
surface. One tube was connected to both ends of the pressure sensor to measure the
pressure difference. The voltage values measured with the help of the pressure
transducer powered by the power supply, which has an input voltage of 22-30 V and
output voltage of ±2.5 V, on the flow bench transfer the data to the connector board to
be processed and redirected to data acquisition card. The data transferred to the
computer is read with the help of the LabVIEW software. Velocity measurements were
recorded by increasing the distance of the probe to the surface under constant flow rate.
The experiment was repeated at 2 different plate height and 2 different flow rates.

Experimentation Process. Before starting the experiment, environment

temperature and pressure should be measured. In this case, it is 19◦ C and 760 mmHg
respectively. This values is used to calculate the viscosity value of the air. Also,
preferably this values should be entered as an input to LabVIEW to get correct
calculations. Since the flow rate will increase in the narrow environment, one of
dynamic pressure measurements was made at the upper, wide section of the flow bench
rather than the testing area in order to get the free stream velocity values. When the
membrane in the pressure sensor extends along with the pressure difference, the voltage
value changes. The strain gauge is known to be affected easily from basic, everyday
concepts such as small changes in temperature, precipitate and pressure; therefore the
calibration equation brings about in accurate, output is NaN, results that can be
restored by setting the offset value to 0.4. By setting the offset value to 0.4, we therefore
eliminate certain unreal equation characteristic. For example, Bernoulli’s equation has
negative values for the speed values under a root for 0.45 offset value. This is technically
not real and must be fixed in order to associate the equation with a physical response.
Sampling time changes between 5 and 10 seconds. This means that hundreds, thousands
of data is gathered in the time interval to form a mean value and recorded as an output.
COMPUTATIONAL LAMINAR BOUNDARY LAYER ANALYSIS 8

Detailed explanation of the experiment parameters can be examined in Table 2.

Evaluation of Data

The code that is used to evaluate the experimental data is packed together with
the code that is used to evaluate theoretical analytical and numerical analysis which is
located in the appendix entitled "MATLAB Code for Various Numerical Calculations".
Figure 4 represents the experimental data characteristic over a flat plate.

Discussion

Figure 5 and Figure 6 is plotted in order to understand the differences between

different approaches that are took to analyze the boundary layer characteristic over a
flat plate. In figure 2 the boundary layer representations of different flows are manually,
by means of poor coding, limited to their boundary layer limit due to them showing a
rather messy view for a potential reader. However, this distortion happening at the
point f 0 (η) = 1 of Figure 5 is the result of no alteration to the state of the theoretical
u
computation. This further proves the boundary limit conditions that are U
< 1 for
y u y
Y = δ
< 1 and U
= 1 for Y = δ
≥ 1. Also, experimental results are displayed in Table
1 alongside the previous findings. Figure 5 looks almost identical to the f 0 (η) parameter
in Figure 1. This is an important concept that can be used to hypothesize the
u
correctness of the calculations. However, in Figure 6 U
is considerably close to zero up
until the point 0.5 on the x axis. This can be assumed as incorrect by inspecting the
experimental data. This outcome is expected by virtue of the Reynolds number
calculations that has been made throughout of this paper. It seems that the horizontal
distance along a flat plate plays a big role in boundary layer thickness for a turbulent
flow. Table 1 shows detailed attributes for the different approaches that are took. In
Figure 4, 5 and 6 all the plot lines indicates that with increasing speed boundary layer
thickness decreases and with increasing horizontal distance along a flat plate the
boundary layer thickness decreases. Although, both solutions failed to propose a
appropriate solution for the characteristics of the flow at 25.1 centimeters away from
leading edge. It is seen that there are some differences between the theoretical results
COMPUTATIONAL LAMINAR BOUNDARY LAYER ANALYSIS 9

and the experiment that was conducted. The reasons for this are the calibration errors
of experimental setup and assumptions in Blasius Boundary Layer equation. If the
experiment were conducted under more flawless conditions such as better calibrated
setup, the theoretical results would be much closer to the experimental ones we
obtained.

Summary

Blasius’s equation’s numerical outcome refers to more realistic situations.

Reynolds number suggests that the flow for the particular experiment was done under
laminar conditions. This is a critical interpretation for a steady-state, incompressible
flow because turbulent flow has different characteristics that usually involves high
friction for a flow at standard sea-level conditions, pressure and temperature is assumed
to be constant, that pasts a flat plate. This interpretation deducts that Blasius’
equation would be a more suitable choice. Even though high velocity decreases
boundary layer thickness, it can double itself easily as flow goes along the flat plate.
COMPUTATIONAL LAMINAR BOUNDARY LAYER ANALYSIS 10

Table 1
Comparison of Boundary Layer Thicknesses

Laminar Flow Turbulent Flow Experimental Results

Distance 8.2 m/s 15.4 m/s 8.2 m/s 15.4 m/s 8.2 m/s 15.4 m/s

11.4 cm 0.0276 0.0201 0.199 0.175 0.0305 0.0225

23.8 cm 0.0399 - 0.359 - 0.0385 -
25.1 cm - 0.0298 - 0.33 - 0.0635

Note. The speed values are free stream velocities that are provided to the system by an
air flow bench. The distance indicates the horizontal distance along a flat plate. The
resulting elements of the table, which are in centimeters, denotes the boundary layer
thicknesses of various combined factors.
COMPUTATIONAL LAMINAR BOUNDARY LAYER ANALYSIS 11

Table 2
Boundary Layer Experimentation Attributes

Velocity Distance Sampling Time Step Size

Safe zone Exact Value Safe Zone Exact Value

8-10 8.18563 20-25 23.8 5 0.1

15-18 15.41774 24-30 25.1 10 0.1
6-10 8.18563 8-12 11.4 5 0.1
14-16 15.41774 8-12 11.4 10 0.1

Note. Different measurement factors that are decided for this experiment can be
examined from the table. Velocity values are in m/s, distance values are in centimeters,
sampling times are in seconds and step sizes are in millimeters. The distance indicates
the horizontal distance along a flat plate. If desired, values between the safe zone can
be taken and this the experimentation would correspond similarly. Although, the
calculations and computation should be done according to the newly acquired
parameters.
12
COMPUTATIONAL LAMINAR BOUNDARY LAYER ANALYSIS

Figure 1 . Numerical approximation by means of 4th order Runge-Kutta method for Blasius’ Equation is visualized in this figure.
 COMPUTATIONAL LAMINAR BOUNDARY LAYER ANALYSIS

Figure 2 . Velocity Profiles for different locations along with boundary layer thickness is visualized in the plot. Cyan rectangle
represents a flat plate.
13
14
COMPUTATIONAL LAMINAR BOUNDARY LAYER ANALYSIS

Figure 3 . Velocity Profiles for different locations along with boundary layer thickness is visualized in the plot. Cyan rectangle
represents a flat plate.
 COMPUTATIONAL LAMINAR BOUNDARY LAYER ANALYSIS

Figure 4 . Experimental velocity values obtained from the data that are gathered by LabVIEW and worked on by means of MATLAB
programming.
15
16
COMPUTATIONAL LAMINAR BOUNDARY LAYER ANALYSIS

Figure 5 . Velocity profiles for different factors which are indicated in the legend section combined together for a laminar flow.
 COMPUTATIONAL LAMINAR BOUNDARY LAYER ANALYSIS

Figure 6 . VVelocity profiles for different factors which are indicated in the legend section combined together for a turbulent flow.
17
COMPUTATIONAL LAMINAR BOUNDARY LAYER ANALYSIS 18

Appendix A
MATLAB Code for Various Numerical Calculations

1 clc;close all

2 U_infty = [8.18563, 15.41774];

3 nu = 18.08*10^−6/0.827506044905009;

4 fileID = fopen('C:\Users\hyper\OneDrive\Belgeler\MATLAB\evaluation.dat'

,'w');

5 %% ODE Approximation

6 f1 = @(x, y0, y1, y2) y1;

7 f2 = @(x, y0, y1, y2) y2;

8 f3 = @(x, y0, y1, y2) −y0*y2;

9 eta = 0:0.01:30;

10 x = 0:0.01:30;

11 y0 = zeros(1,3001);

12 y1 = zeros(1,3001);

13 y2 = zeros(1,3001);

14 y2(1) = 0.4696;

15 for i = 1:(length(eta)−1)

16 k1 = 0.01.*[f1(eta(i), y0(i), y1(i), y2(i)), f2(eta(i), y0(i), y1(i),

y2(i)), f3(eta(i), y0(i), y1(i), y2(i))];

17 k2 = 0.01.*[f1(eta(i)+0.005, y0(i)+k1(1)/2, y1(i)+k1(2)/2, y2(i)+k1(3)

/2), f2(eta(i)+0.005, y0(i)+k1(1)/2, y1(i)+k1(2)/2, y2(i)+k1(3)/2),

f3(eta(i)+0.005, y0(i)+k1(1)/2, y1(i)+k1(2)/2, y2(i)+k1(3)/2)];

18 k3 = 0.01.*[f1(eta(i)+0.005, y0(i)+k2(1)/2, y1(i)+k2(2)/2, y2(i)+k2(3)

/2), f2(eta(i)+0.005, y0(i)+k2(1)/2, y1(i)+k2(2)/2, y2(i)+k2(3)/2),

f3(eta(i)+0.005, y0(i)+k2(1)/2, y1(i)+k2(2)/2, y2(i)+k2(3)/2)];

19 k4 = 0.01.*[f1(eta(i)+0.01, y0(i)+k3(1), y1(i)+k3(2), y2(i)+k3(3)), f2(

eta(i)+0.01, y0(i)+k3(1), y1(i)+k3(2), y2(i)+k3(3)), f3(eta(i)

+0.01, y0(i)+k3(1), y1(i)+k3(2), y2(i)+k3(3))];

COMPUTATIONAL LAMINAR BOUNDARY LAYER ANALYSIS 19

20 y2(i+1) = y2(i)+ 1/6*(k1(3)+2*k2(3)+2*k3(3)+k4(3));

21 y1(i+1) = y1(i)+ 1/6*(k1(2)+2*k2(2)+2*k3(2)+k4(2));

22 y0(i+1) = y0(i)+ 1/6*(k1(1)+2*k2(1)+2*k3(1)+k4(1));

23 end

24 plot(y0, eta, y1, eta, y2, eta, 'LineWidth', 2)

25 xlim([0 2]);ylim([0 10])

26 title('Solution of Blasius eqution');

27 xlabel('f(\eta), f''(\eta), f''''(\eta)');

28 ylabel('\eta');

29 grid on

30 legend('f(\eta)', 'f''(\eta)', 'f''''(\eta)');

31 %% Laminar Velocity Profiles

32 figure;hold all

33 delta = 5.*sqrt(x.*nu./U_infty(1));

34 delta(2,:) = 5.*sqrt(x.*nu./U_infty(2));

35 position = [11.4 23.8 25.1];

36 fprintf(fileID,'Theoretical Boundary Layer Thickness for Laminar Flow\r

\n');

37 for i = 1:2

38 for j = 1:i:i+1

39 fprintf(fileID,'y = %g cm for x = %g cm and U = %g m/s\r\n',

vpa(round(delta(i, x==position(j)),3,'significant')),

position(j), vpa(round(U_infty(i),2,'significant')));

40 end

41 end

42 plot(x, delta(1,:), x, delta(2,:),'LineWidth', 2);

43 for i = 1:2

44 for j = 1:i:i+1

45 y = eta.*sqrt(2*position(j)*nu/U_infty(i));
COMPUTATIONAL LAMINAR BOUNDARY LAYER ANALYSIS 20

46 y = y(1:find(y>delta(i,find(x==position(j))+100),1));

47 plot(y1(1:size(y,2))+position(j), y)

48 end

49 end

50 rectangle('Position',[0 −0.001 30 0.001],'FaceColor','cyan')

51 title('Theoretical Velocity Profiles Along with Boundary Layer

Thickness for Laminar Flow');

52 xlim([0 30]);ylim([−0.001 .07]);xlabel('x (cm)');ylabel('y (cm)');grid

minor

53 legend('\delta(x) for U_{\infty} = 8.2', '\delta(x) for U_{\infty} =

15.4', 'x = 11.4 for U_{\infty} = 8.2', 'x = 23.8 for U_{\infty}

= 8.2', 'x = 11.4 for U_{\infty} = 15.4', 'x = 25.1 for U_{\infty

} = 15.4');

54 k1 = gca;

55 k1.TickLabelInterpreter = 'latex';

56 S = sym(k1.XLim(1):1:k1.XLim(2));

57 S = sym(round(vpa(S/1))*1);

58 k1.XTick = double(S);

59 k1.XTickLabel = strcat('$',arrayfun(@latex, S, 'UniformOutput', false),

'$');

60 %% Turbulent Velocity Profiles

61 figure;hold all

62 delta = 0.37.*(nu./U_infty(1)).^(1/5).*x.^(4/5);

63 delta(2, :) = 0.37.*(nu./U_infty(2)).^(1/5).*x.^(4/5);

64 fprintf(fileID,'\r\n');

65 fprintf(fileID,'Theoretical Boundary Layer Thickness for Turbulent Flow

\r\n');

66 for i = 1:2

67 for j = 1:i:i+1
COMPUTATIONAL LAMINAR BOUNDARY LAYER ANALYSIS 21

68 fprintf(fileID,'y = %g cm for x = %g cm and U = %g m/s\r\n',

vpa(round(delta(i, x==position(j)),3,'significant')),

position(j), vpa(round(U_infty(i),3,'significant')));

69 end

70 end

71 fprintf(fileID, '\r\nExperimentional Values\r\ny = 0.0305 cm for x =

11.4 cm and U = 8.2 m/s\r\ny = 0.0385 cm for x = 23.8 cm and U =

8.2 m/s\r\ny = 0.0225 cm for x = 11.4 cm and U = 15.4 m/s\r\ny =

0.0635 cm for x = 25.1 cm and U = 15.4 m/s');

72 fclose(fileID);

73 plot(x, delta(1,:), x, delta(2,:),'LineWidth', 2);

74 for i = 1:2

75 for j = 1:i:i+1

76 y = y1.^7*0.37*(nu/U_infty(i)).^(1/5).*position(j).^(4/5);

77 plot(y1+position(j), y)

78 end

79 end

80 rectangle('Position',[0 −0.01 30 0.01],'FaceColor','cyan')

81 title('Theoretical Velocity Profiles Along with Boundary Layer

Thickness for Turbulent Flow');

82 xlim([0 30]);ylim([−0.01 .55]);xlabel('x (cm)');ylabel('y (cm)');grid

minor

83 legend('\delta(x) for U_{\infty} = 8.2', '\delta(x) for U_{\infty} =

15.4', 'x = 11.4 for U_{\infty} = 8.2', 'x = 23.8 for U_{\infty}

= 8.2', 'x = 11.4 for U_{\infty} = 15.4', 'x = 25.1 for U_{\infty

} = 15.4');

84 k1 = gca;

85 k1.TickLabelInterpreter = 'latex';

86 S = sym(k1.XLim(1):1:k1.XLim(2));
 COMPUTATIONAL LAMINAR BOUNDARY LAYER ANALYSIS 22

87 S = sym(round(vpa(S/1))*1);

88 k1.XTick = double(S);

89 k1.XTickLabel = strcat('$',arrayfun(@latex, S, 'UniformOutput', false),

'$');

90 %% Normal Velocity

91 figure;hold all

92 for i = 1:2

93 v = sqrt(2*U_infty(i).*x.*nu/100).*(eta.*y1−y0);

94 for j = 1:i:i+1

95 y = eta*sqrt(position(j).*nu./U_infty(i)/2);

96 plot(v, y)

97 end

98 end

99 title('Normal Velocity');xlabel('v (m/s)');ylabel('y (cm)');axis tight;

grid on

100 legend('x = 11.4, U_{\infty} = 8.2', 'x = 23.8, U_{\infty} = 8.2',

'x = 11.4, U_{\infty} = 15.4', 'x = 25.1, U_{\infty} = 15.4')

101 %% Experimentation Results

102 figure;hold all

103 uzak_1 = dlmread('C:\Users\hyper\OneDrive\Belgeler\MATLAB\uzak1.dat',''

, 2, 0);

104 uzak_2 = dlmread('C:\Users\hyper\OneDrive\Belgeler\MATLAB\uzak2.dat',''

, 2, 0);

105 yakin_1 = dlmread('C:\Users\hyper\OneDrive\Belgeler\MATLAB\yakin1.dat',

'', 2, 0);

106 yakin_2 = dlmread('C:\Users\hyper\OneDrive\Belgeler\MATLAB\yakin2.dat',

'', 2, 0);

107 plot(yakin_1(:,4)./U_infty(1), yakin_1(:,1)./100, uzak_1(:,4)./U_infty

(1), uzak_1(:,1)./100, yakin_2(:,4)./U_infty(2), yakin_2(:,1)./100,

 COMPUTATIONAL LAMINAR BOUNDARY LAYER ANALYSIS 23

uzak_2(:,4)./U_infty(2), uzak_2(:,1)./100)

108 legend('x = 11.4 for U_{\infty} = 8.2', 'x = 23.8 for U_{\infty} =

8.2', 'x = 11.4 for U_{\infty} = 15.4', 'x = 25.1 for U_{\infty} =

15.4','Location','Best')

109 xlabel('f''(\eta)');ylabel('y (cm)');grid minor

110 title('Experimental Velocity Profiles');

111 %% Velocity Profiles for Laminar Flow (f' vs y)

112 figure;hold all

113 delta = 5.*sqrt(x.*nu./U_infty(1));

114 delta(2,:) = 5.*sqrt(x.*nu./U_infty(2));

115 for i = 1:2

116 for j = 1:i:i+1

117 y = eta.*sqrt(2*position(j)*nu/U_infty(i));

118 plot(y1, y)

119 end

120 end

121 title('Velocity Profiles for Laminar Flow over a Flat Plate');

122 xlim([0 1]);xlabel('f''(\eta)');ylabel('y (cm)');grid minor

123 legend('x = 11.4 for U_{\infty} = 8.2', 'x = 23.8 for U_{\infty} =

8.2', 'x = 11.4 for U_{\infty} = 15.4', 'x = 25.1 for U_{\infty} =

15.4');

124 %% Velocity Profiles for Turbulent Flow (f' vs y)

125 figure;hold all

126 for i = 1:2

127 for j = 1:i:i+1

128 y = y1.^7*0.37*(nu/U_infty(i)).^(1/5).*position(j).^(4/5);

129 plot(y1, y)

130 end

131 end
 COMPUTATIONAL LAMINAR BOUNDARY LAYER ANALYSIS 24

132 title('Velocity Profiles for Turbulent Flow over a Flat Plate');

133 xlim([0 1]);xlabel('f''(\eta)');ylabel('y (cm)');grid minor

134 legend('x = 11.4 for U_{\infty} = 8.2', 'x = 23.8 for U_{\infty} =

8.2', 'x = 11.4 for U_{\infty} = 15.4', 'x = 25.1 for U_{\infty} =

15.4','Location','NorthWest');
COMPUTATIONAL LAMINAR BOUNDARY LAYER ANALYSIS 25

Appendix B
Normal Velocity

Figure B1 . Normal velocity values for different locations are stated in the given figure.