Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-j7cmm Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T01:22:11.690Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Evaluating the power mean method to determine an equivalent sandgrain roughness parameter over streamwise-heterogeneous roughness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 June 2025

Vidya Vishwanathan
Affiliation:
Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, Laurel, MD, USA
Nicholas Hutchins
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
Michael P. Schultz*
Affiliation:
Department of Naval Architecture & Ocean Engineering, United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, MD, USA
*
Corresponding author: Michael Paul Schultz; Email: mschultz@usna.edu

Abstract

Weighted and unweighted power mean methods are compared against the accuracy of the simple arithmetic average to estimate an equivalent sandgrain roughness parameter ($k_{s}$) for streamwise-heterogeneous rough surfaces. Specifically, these methods are conceptually and iteratively tested on roughness plates with surface characteristics following beta ($\beta$), uniform or Gaussian distributions. The sandgrain roughness computed using these averaging methods, $k_{s_{eq}}$, is then compared with true parameters, $k_{s_{eff}}$, estimated from the fully rough asymptote model and a modified momentum integral method that accounts for the streamwise variation of skin friction over the heterogeneous surface. The weighted power mean offers significant advantages, particularly for roughness in $\beta$ distribution, which is attributed to the distribution bias towards smaller magnitudes of $k_s$. While the advantage of using the weighted power mean over the unweighted power mean is less significant for the other surface distributions, the weighted method consistently yields the lowest discrepancy in effective drag estimates, independent of roughness configuration, and is therefore the recommended method for estimating the effective sandgrain roughness across heterogeneous surfaces.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is a work of the US Government and is not subject to copyright protection within the United States. Published by Cambridge University Press.
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© United States Navy, 2025
Figure 0

Table 1. Probability density functions for the investigated roughness configurations. The effective sandgrain roughness,$k_s$, for the patch is randomly selected between the lower and upper limits of $k_{s_1} = 15$$\mu m$ and $k_{s_2} = 10$ mm, respectively.

Figure 1

Figure 1. Probability density functions of the roughness distributions: $\beta$ (left), uniform (middle) and Gaussian (right).

Figure 2

Figure 2. (a) Schematic of a panel of length $L$ divided into $N$ patches. Inset shows the discretisations (in red and not to scale) used for the streamwise momentum integral method described in § 2.3. (b) Representative integrated drag behaviour for each patch which is used to determine the incremental integrated drag, $C_{F_{l_{i}}}$, over a section of the plate of length $l_i$.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Streamwise weighting distributions for plates of various lengths in $N = 10$ equal-area sections. A curve fit for the average weighting distribution of all plate lengths is provided in the inset.

Figure 4

Figure 4. Flowchart describing steps of the modified momentum integral method to determine skin friction drag over a streamwise-heterogeneous rough-wall plate.

Figure 5

Figure 5. Comparison of $\Delta k_s$ (left) and $\Delta C_F$ (right) for the $\beta$-distributed roughness plates: arithmetic average (), UPM () and WPM (). Each symbol represents one of $10\,000$ plate configurations in the specified roughness configuration.

Figure 6

Figure 6. Comparison of $\Delta k_s$ (left) and $\Delta C_F$ (right) for the uniformly distributed roughness plates; symbols same as in figure 5.

Figure 7

Figure 7. Comparison of $\Delta k_s$ (left) and $\Delta C_F$ (right) for the Gaussian-distributed roughness plates; symbols same as in figure 5.

Figure 8

Figure 8. Spread of the $k_{s_{i}}$ patch distribution for the $\beta$ roughness configuration: (a) AHR, (b) UPM and (c) WPM.

Figure 9

Figure 9. Variation of the absolute relative difference in integrated drag by Reynolds number ($Re_L$) for the $\beta$-distributed roughness when computed using (a) AHR, (b) UPM and (c) WPM. Each symbol represents one of $1000$ plate configurations.