Turbulence Scales in A Compressible Subsonic Boundary Layer at Moderate Reynolds Number

IPASJ International Journal of Mechanical Engineering (IIJME)
Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJME/IIJME.htm

A Publisher for Research Motivation ........ Email:editoriijme@ipasj.org
Volume 6, Issue 12, December 2018 ISSN 2321-6441
Turbulence Scales in a Compressible Subsonic

Boundary Layer at Moderate Reynolds Number
Peter J Disimile1, Norman Toy2
1
Department of Aerospace Engineering
University of Cincinnati,
Ohio 47006, USA
Corresponding Author
2
Engineering & Scientific Innovations Inc
7383 Dixie Hwy, Fairfield, OH 45014, USA
ABSTRACT
Turbulent length scales are presented for a compressible subsonic boundary layer including the Kolmogorov, Taylor
and Integral length scales. The scales have been determined directly from experimental analysis of the boundary
layer characteristics using a single hot-wire probe, corrected for temperature, in a purpose built flow facility. It was
found that care must be taken when determining these length scales using dissipation values, but typically the
Kolmogorov length scales ranged from 8 – 12 m, the Taylor scales from 80 – 380 m and the Integral scales
between 0.8 – 4.0 mm.
Keywords: Compressible, Subsonic Boundary Layer, Turbulent Length Scales
1. INTRODUCTION
Since the majority of all natural flows are turbulent, understanding the scales of turbulent motions that make up
turbulent boundary layers is of great interest. While turbulent boundary layer flows have been well documented in terms
of the mean velocity profiles, shear stresses, and the intensity of the turbulence, information on the distribution of
turbulence length scales in compressible subsonic wall bounded flows is limited and inconsistent. This was highlighted
in a review where it was emphasized that there are still many challenges that need to be addressed for high Reynolds
number wall-bounded turbulent boundary layers [1]. Of particular importance is the relationship between the scales of
turbulent motions and the mean velocity distribution in the wall bounded flow at moderate to high Reynolds number
[2]. A problem that has been highlighted in an earlier review that questioned the scaling and structure of high Reynolds
number wall-bounded flows [3].
This lack of information pertaining to turbulent motions is critical to our underlying understanding of energy
transport and propagation phenomenon which is directly related to several areas of current research interest such as
aero-optic distortion, aero-acoustics, and turbulent combustion.
The lack of precise experimental turbulence scale data is mainly due to the high level of difficulty in measuring
turbulence scales as well as the increased time required during the design of the experimental setup, data acquisition,
and post-acquisition analysis. As a result, researchers currently base their results on generalized approximations,
which may be inaccurate or computational models which have not been sufficiently validated. One important example
is the general assumption that the largest scale of turbulence (Integral scale) is directly related to the largest coherent
structures of the flow. However, while the largest coherent structures are some of the largest scales in the flow,
turbulence is a continuous spectrum, and the integral scale of turbulence, by definition, represents an average size of
the energy containing the eddy range. Consequently, it is not valid to assume that the integral turbulence scale is equal
to the size of the largest coherent structures. Detailed turbulence scale information is therefore necessary throughout the
shear flow to aid in the fundamental understanding of the nature of free shear flows. This data will not only assist the
experimental community, such as those interested in aero-optic distortion, but the modeling community as well,
especially those modeling turbulent reacting flows, which is still in its infancy stage. To this end, the current paper
Volume 6, Issue 12, December 2018 Page 1
presents the integral, Taylor and Kolmogorov length scale distributions measured within a well-documented fully
developed turbulent boundary layer under a slightly favorable pressure gradient flow. It is hoped that this data will
provide a useful validation data set for computational simulation of compressible turbulent boundary layers at moderate
Reynolds numbers.
2. EXPERIMENTAL STRATEGY
The current study utilized air being drawn through a well formed highly curved entrance into a rectangular test
section that incorporates a backward facing step, Fig 1. This test section, that included the step which was being used
for an aero-optic study of the separating and reattaching shear flow, has the dimensions as shown in Fig 2, [4].
Figure 1 Experimental Facility
Flow Direction
104.4 mm
Y 175.0 mm
35.3 mm
X
Z 762.0 mm 381.0 mm
Figure 2 Schematic of the Test Section in the Experimental Facility
The freestream flow, upstream of the step, was observed to have a high level of uniformity with a streamwise velocity
of 185 m/s and a streamwise turbulent intensity (TI) of 1.5% which was observed to be within +/- 1.5% across the
center 50% of the test section width. This produced a quasi-two-dimensional boundary layer over the central core of
the flow, Fig 3.
Figure 3 Quasi two-dimensional boundary layer over the central core region

For the current reporting the boundary layer flow at 17.7 mm upstream of the backward facing step, one-half a step
height, and along the test section centerline (z-axis) was used as the point of study and provides a well-documented
boundary layer data set for a channel flow at Reτ = 22,220 and M=0.53, where the Reynolds number is based on the
friction velocity and the channel half-height. The streamwise pressure gradient (dp/dx) was determined to be slightly
favorable and equal to17.96 kPa/m.
Instantaneous velocity measurements were acquired with a single miniature hot-wire probe connected to a constant
temperature anemometry (CTA) system. The local temperature of the flow adjacent to the hot-wire sensor was also
acquired using a high-speed thermocouple thereby enabling simultaneous temperature correction of the acquired hot-
wire data. Specifically, all velocity and turbulence measurements were acquired with a hot wire probe consisting of a 5
µm tungsten hot-wire sensor. A miniature type K bare bead thermocouple was also attached to the probe support. This
CTA probe was specifically selected to provide good spatial resolution, fast time response and a length/diameter ratio of
250, which has been experimentally determined to provide acceptable 1D energy dissipation measurements, which will
also be used when the separating boundary layer is examined in a future study [5]. All hot-wire measurements were
acquired at a sampling rate of 45 kHz for a duration of 20 seconds. This ensured a sufficient time response and good
stationary averages of all presented quantities. In addition, thermocouple measurements were also sampled
simultaneously. This enabled a thermal correction to be applied to the CTA data, which is a result of the temperature
difference between the airflow within the boundary layer and that recorded during hot-wire calibration as previously
documented [6]. All CTA velocity data presented herein is calibrated and temperature corrected with a maximum error
of +/-1%.
A computer controlled, three-axis, micro-stepping traverse system was utilized to provide stable and repeatable
positioning of the CTA and thermocouple probes with a resolution of 22 µm. Measurements were acquired at a total of
73 spatial positions throughout the boundary layer. The boundary layer measurement traverse was initiated with the
hot-wire positioned 30 µm above the boundary layer surface (i.e., test section floor), which was verified using an optical
measuring system. Variable spacing between measurement locations ranged from 0.1 mm, in the high shear regions
close to the test surface, to 5.0 mm at the upper edge of the boundary layer.
3. METHODOLOGY
While many methods exist for calculating the turbulence length scales from experimental data, the authors elected to
rely on the Re scaling relationships and the Kolmogorov lengths scale calculated from direct measurement of the
energy dissipation rate. This method was elected for two primary reasons. First, isotropy of the large scales cannot be
readily assumed in a turbulent boundary layer; however, isotropy of the small scales is highly likely. Second,
determining the integral and Taylor scales through the autocorrelation of the velocity is susceptible to environmental
interferences, which can skew the autocorrelation function. Furthermore, The energy dissipation rate () can be
considered either from a viscous term, equation (1), or from an inertia term, equation (2), and both have been applied to
the data set in order to highlight how this boundary layer may provide further insight into the turbulent scales within a
compressible boundary layer, with both being applied to the different length scales.
Viscous Dissipation, ()

(1)
Inertia Dissipation, (I) (2)
The turbulent length scales, namely the Kolmogorov, Taylor and Integral scales were determined for the current
study from the scaling relationships as provided by Tennekes and Lumley and relating the Integral (), Taylor () and
Komogorov () length scales through the appropriate Reynolds numbers as presented below, equations (3), (4) and (5),
[7].

Kolmogorov Length Scale, () (3)
(4)
And
(5)
where the turbulent scale Reynolds numbers are based on the appropriate lengths scale and the fluctuating (rms)
velocity, u’,  is the kinematic viscosity (corrected for pressure and temperature using Sutherland’s equation), and  is
the Von Karman constant.
4. DISCUSSION
Documentation of the Mean Flow Boundary Layer was provided by measuring the streamwise velocity time series
consisting of 900,000 data points which were acquired at each spatial location within the boundary layer. Each time
series were decomposed into a time averaged or mean velocity (U) and an rms velocity component (u’). This enabled
the time mean streamwise velocity and rms turbulence intensity (TI) profiles within the boundary layer to be
constructed, Fig 4.
Figure 4 Dimensional velocity and Turbulent Intensity distributions within the boundary layer.
From the velocity time series it was determined that the maximum freestream velocity (U∞) was 184.7 m/s and the
maximum level of TI recorded within the boundary layer was 12.96 %. Furthermore, the thickness of this boundary
layer () based on 99% velocity was determined to be approximately 31.4 mm, with the displacement and momentum
thickness * and , respectively (see Table 1 below), being calculated from a numerical integration of the experimental
velocity profile data. Although it is usual to use a power-law form of the velocity profile, equation (6), as an input for
CFD users with an exponent “n” of 7 being used for a fully developed turbulent boundary layer, it should be
remembered that the exponent “n” is Reynolds Number dependent.
(6)

Consequently, the experimentally acquired normalized velocity profile obtained from the current data set in a
compressible boundary layer is plotted along with the power law form for n=6, 7, 10 in Fig 5.
Figure 5 Normalized experimental velocity distribution compared to

the power law correlation for three different values of n.
Clearly evident is an overshoot close to the wall of the experimental data when compared to the value of “n” is 10.
This is observed within the plot of “n” verses Re found in most literature as Re exceeds 106. However, to truly
determine the state of a turbulent boundary layer the velocity profile should be re-plotted in terms of the non-
dimensional wall coordinates. That is, where the local velocity is normalized by the friction velocity (u*) and the
distance from the wall modified by u*, equation (7), with the frictional velocity, u*, and the friction coefficient Cf
calculated from the experimental data using the method presented by Clauser [8],
and (7)
The current data is plotted along with Law of the Wall correlation and two previously published experimental studies
[1, 2, 9], Fig 6. Again, good agreement between the experimental data and the correlation is observed and provides
support for the possible existence of a universal turbulent boundary layer.
Figure 6 The velocity distribution recorded within the boundary layer

plotted in wall coordinates and compared to other published studies.

The current velocity distribution is observed to span an extended law of the wall region between y+ values of 56 and
2400, thereby partially supporting the idea of a fully developed turbulent boundary layer. The velocity profile in the
wake region (y+ > 7200) suggests the presence of compressibility and a slightly favorable pressure gradient, as
indicated by u+ values below the log-law line.
For the current study a Cf value of 0.002389 was determined at the measurement location, 17.7 mm upstream of the
backward facing step edge, and Table 1 gives all the boundary layer characteristics for this position, including the
shape factor (H) which was found to be within 2% of earlier reported data [1] and within 0.5% of published data [14].
Table 1: Boundary Layer Quantities
Furthermore, Fig 7 shows three distributions of Cf as a function of the Reynolds number based on the momentum
thickness (Re) for a zero pressure gradient (ZPG), an adverse pressure gradient (APG), and a favorable pressure
gradient (FPG).These test condition for the Cf in a channel under a FPG with a value of Re = 22,360 is also in good
agreement with published data [10].
Figure 7 Variation of Skin friction (Cf) as a function of pressure gradient and Reynolds number based on the
momentum thickness. Three conditions are presented; APG – adverse pressure gradient, ZPG – zero pressure gradient,
and FPG – favorable pressure gradient.
Similarly, the mean streamwise TI profile (Fig 8) is also observed to follow a typical boundary layer trend with a
maximum value of approximately 13 % recorded 30 m above the plate and gradually decreasing with increasing y/.
For the current conditions the freestream TI value dropped to approximately 1.3 % beyond y/ = 1 where the boundary
layer thickness () was 31.38 mm.
Figure 8 The normalized streamwise turbulent intensity through the boundary layer.

Replotting the turbulent intensity data as turbulence energy intensity by normalizing the turbulent velocity by the
friction velocity and plotting it against the wall variable y+ the region of max turbulence energy can be identified (Fig
9). Within this figure is data from the current experiment and several other published works. Quickly apparent are
some general salient features:
1- The maximum turbulent energy occurs in a region between y+ = 10 to 25 and drops off as the boundary layer is
increased and y+ is increased.
2- The tail of the turbulence energy curve moves to a high y+ as Reτ increases, [11].
3- There is a flattening in the turbulent energy curve that starts around a y+ of approximately 40, with this flat region
or plateau increasing with Re. The length of region falls within the log law region of the mean velocity profile which
represents the inertial sublayer region where there is strong interaction between the different turbulent scales.
4- Beyond this plateau a steep drop off is observed as the freestream is approached.
Figure 9 Normalized streamwise turbulent energy profiles within the

boundary layer compared with other published studies.
4.1 Turbulent Scales
Turbulence is made up of a range of eddies ranging from the size of the main flow to very small eddies that interact
with the molecular diffusive process of viscosity. Although there are an infinite number of scales which cover this
whole range three major groups of eddies have been identified and utilized when discussing turbulent processes. These
groups are referred to as the a) integral scale, b) Taylor microscale, and c) Kolmogorov microscale. The following
subsections will define and present the profiles of these length scales that were measured in the subsonic compressible
turbulent boundary layer at moderate to high Re.
However, before discussing the relevant length scales, it is important to examine the effect of the choice in the value
of the dissipation rate () that is used to determine the length scale. Since this dissipation rate () may be determine
from viscous or inertia considerations, equations (1) and (2), the difference in the value between () and (I) is
apparent in Fig 10. It may be observed that the inertia dissipation (I) remains relatively constant for the first 10% of
the thickness of the boundary layer and then reduces in value until it reaches about 60% of the boundary layer where it
appears to then become constant for the remaining thickness of the boundary layer. In comparison, the viscous
dissipation () rapidly fall from a peak value for the first 5% of the boundary layer thickness and then reduces to a
minimum for another 15%, after which it remains fairly constant.
Figure 10 Different values of the dissipation rate () and (I) through the boundary layer

If these results are replotted in terms of y+ coordinates, Fig 11, the viscous dissipation is shown to reduce linearly
through the boundary layer, which is not surprising since y+ is only a function of the boundary layer thickness y,
equation (7). However, the inertia thickness ((I)) remains relatively constant up to a y+ of approximately 2000 and is
due to its dependence on u’2 , equation (2).
Figure 11 Dissipation rates as a function of y+

These two dissipation rates were then applied to determine the turbulent length scales through the compressible
boundary layer and the results are presented in the following discussion.
4.2.1 Kolmogorov Microscale ():

The Kolmogorov microscale () represents the smallest scales of motion where viscous affects take control and the
dissipation of mechanical energy is transformed into thermal energy. The effect of the value for the Kolmogorov length
scale, as determined from equation 3, in which the value of the dissipation rate () is of paramount importance may be
observed from the results shown in Fig 12. The effect of viscosity on the turbulent length scales is clearly evident and
appears to be linearly related when plotted in y+ coordinates. Again this is not surprising since () is only dependent on
the linear distance y above the surface. What is a little more surprising is that the length scales due to inertia are less
than those predicted by the viscous values although they are in good agreement close to the surface at a value of
approximately 5.5 m. Towards the outer edge of the boundary layer, y+ > 10,000, the Kolmogorov length scales based
on inertia dissipation is of the order of 12 m, whereas that for the viscous dissipation it is approximately 20 m. Since
the Kolmogorov length scales are predominantly associated with viscosity effects close to the surface, well within the
momentum thickness of the boundary layer, it is not surprising that the values further away from the surface will be in
error, equation (1).
Figure 12 Kolmogorov length scales for different dissipation rates

through the boundary layer as a function of y+

Based on the results presented in earlier publications the measurement of energy dissipation presented within the
current study provides a measurement of  within 20% of the energy dissipation, [5, 15]. Therefore, in the current
work the measured  is expected to be within 20% of the actual , which suggests a Kolmogorov length scale accuracy
of less than +/- 6%.
4.2.2 Taylor Microscale ():
The Taylor microscale () represents the range of energy containing eddies and can be considered as a ratio of the
turbulent energy dissipation to the turbulent kinetic energy. These eddies fall into a band which begins at the interface
between the large eddies (ℓ) and inertial subrange (ℓI). The Taylor microscale extends to the interface between the
inertial subrange and the dissipation range (ℓd). This range is represented by scales of eddies ℓd <  < ℓI. However, the
distribution of length scales are very different if the viscous effects, equation 1, are considered compared to the inertia
effects, equation (2), when determining the Taylor length scales, Fig 13.
The reason for this difference may be simply explained by examining the expression for the Taylor length scale. If
equation (5) is rearranged, then the Taylor length scale () is determined from the expression, equation (8).
(8)
Where () is the Kolmogorov length scale as defined in equation 3. However, since () may be determined using either
the viscous (()) or the inertia ((I)) terms in equations 1 and 2, there will be two possible solutions to this equation 8.
For the viscous solution the Taylor series is dependent not only on the viscosity but also the friction velocity and the
rms of the velocity at a location within the boundary layer, equation 9.
(9)
For the inertia solution, equation (8) simply reduces to being dependent on the sampling time for determining the rms
of the velocity in the boundary layer, equation (10), and would be a constant value of approximately 71 m for the
sampling frequency of 45,000 Hz as shown in Fig 13.
(10)
Unlike the length scale determined from inertia considerations, the length scales from the viscous considerations, Fig
13, shows that the scales increase in size to about 400 m for approximately ¼ of the depth of the boundary layer and
then gradually reduces to an eddy size of about 220 m at the edge of the boundary layer () at a y+ of about 13,000.
These values are larger than the estimated value using classical scaling arguments as presented in Tennekes and
Lumley [7], namely,
(11)
where the microscale may be computed to be of the order of about 50 m, and shows poor agreement, suggesting that in
the case of high Re the classical relation provides a poor estimate.
Figure 13 Taylor microscale () distribution throughout the boundary layer.

4.2.3 The integral scale ():

The integral scale represents the group of large eddies that are responsible for the gross transport of mass,
momentum, and energy. They are sometimes referred to as the energy containing eddies and cover a size range of
approximately an order of magnitude. Based on the dimensional arguments and reasoning the integral time scale can
be approximated by k/, where k is the turbulent kinetic energy and  the energy dissipation rate. Using the local
turbulent velocity an integral length scale can be estimated. Within this range the scales begin at the interface between
the inertial subrange (ℓI) and extending to the maximum size of the flow as constrained by physical shear boundaries
(ℓmax). So it can be stated that the energy containing band is bounded by the interface between the inertial range, ℓI and
extends to the maximum dimension of the shear flow, ℓI <  < ℓmax.
If equation (4) is rearranged, the integral length scale may be determined in terms of the Taylor length scale from the
following expression, equation (12).
(12)
By applying equations (9) and (10) in the above expression, a value for the Integral length scale becomes possible for
the viscous and the inertia conditions, namely, for the viscous case the length scale becomes
(13)
and for the inertia case,
(14)
Neither of these expressions involves the viscosity of the fluid and is solely dependent on the measured components of
velocity and time, Fig 14.
Figure 14 Integral Length Scales () distribution through the boundary layer.
Clearly, the length scales () associated with the viscous terms of the Taylor microscales are several times larger than
the boundary layer thickness () and are unacceptable. However, the scales related to the inertia terms are of the order
of the boundary layer thickness () of approximately 4.0 mm, reducing to about 0.8 mm at the boundary layer edge,
giving a 5:1 ratio. This implies that the inertial subrange is bounded by the scales of these eddies, namely, 0.8mm < 
< 4 mm.
The three length scales that are prevalent within a boundary layer are presented in Fig 15, in which the Kolmogorov
length scales varies between about 4 and 12 m, the Taylor microscales by about 80 to 380 m and the Integral length
scales between 4,000 to 800 m.

Figure 15 Comparison of the Kolmogorov, Taylor and Integral scales distribution through the boundary layer.
Changes in the dissipation rate appear to occur at the same location in the boundary layer, for the current study this
is approximate y+= 680. After y+ of 2,450 they fall off at the same rate. Further, a similar trend is found in the integral
length scale, which has a similar trend and represents the approximate end of the log law region and the beginning of
the wake region as can be seen in the velocity profile. This is also the same position where the normalized turbulent
intensity begins to drastically decay.
Figure 16 Normalized scales for the length scales and dissipation rates
Furthermore, when the normalized scales are plotted against y+ it is observed that the Integral, TKE and the
dissipation rate are all very similar and close to unity near the wall, only falling off in value at approximately y+ =
1,000, Fig 16. This is not surprising since all three are dependent on the rms of the local velocity within the boundary
layer. However, both the Kolmogorov and the Taylor scales exhibit different characteristics with the Kolmogorov
increasing in value from the wall surface towards the boundary layer thickness (), a y+ value of about 13,000. It is
interesting to note that the Taylor scales are depicted as starting to behave similar to the Kolmogorov length scales near
the wall surface at y+ = 100 and then peaks at about y+ = 4,000, approximately 1/3 of the boundary layer thickness, at
which point it starts to behave similar to the Integral /TKE/dissipation scales. Again, these latter two scales are
dependent on the viscosity of the fluid, especially near the wall, with the Taylor scales also being affected by fluid
inertia further out in the boundary layer.

5. CONCLUSIONS
Turbulence length scale distributions are presented for a fully developed boundary layer in a high speed compressible
flow, showing that the Kolmogorov scales vary by a factor of 3 through the boundary layer, the Taylor scale by as much
as 5 if determined from the dissipation due to viscosity, and that the Integral scales were also observed to be
approximately 1/5th of the boundary layer thickness, an observation which directly conflicts the general assumption
that the integral scales are of the order of the boundary layer thickness.
References
[1] I Marusic, R Mathis, N Hutchins, “High Reynolds number effects in wall turbulence,” International Journal of
Heat and Fluid Flow, 31, pp. 418–428, 2010.
[2] R I Marusic, B J McKeon, P A Monkewitz, H M Nagib, A J Smits, and K R Sreenivasan, “Wall-bounded
turbulent flows at high Reynolds numbers: Recent advances and key issues,” Physics of Fluids, 22, 065103, 2010.
[3] B J McKeon, K R Sreenivasan, “Introduction: scaling and structure in high Reynolds number wall-bounded
flows,” Phil Trans R Soc., 365, pp. 635-646, 2007.
[4] P J Disimile, J M Pyles, J M Davis and N Toy, "Aero-Optic Characterization of Multiple Free Shear Layers in a
Backward Facing Step Flow," 46 TG WPAFB Internal Report, 2008.
[5] J W Elsner, P Domagala, W Elsner, “Effect of Finite Spatial Resolution of Hot-Wire Anemometry on
Measurements of Turbulence Energy Dissipation,” Meas. Sci. Technology, Vol. 4, pp. 517-523, 1992.
[6] Dantec Dynamics Technical Note. “Improved Temperature Correction in StreamWare,” Publication No:
TN049909.
[7] H Tennekes, J L Lumley, “A First Course in Turbulence,” The MIT Press, 1972.
[8] F H Clauser, “Turbulent Boundary Layers in Adverse Pressure Gradients,” Journal of Aeronautical Sciences, Vol.
21, No. 2, pp. 91-108, 1954.
[9] J P Monty, J A Stewart, R C Williams, and M S Chong "Large-scale features in turbulent pipe and channel flows"
J. Fluid Mech., 589, pp. 147–156, 2007.
[10] K A Chauhan, H M Nagib, “On the development of wall-bounded turbulent flows,” IUTAM Symposium on
Computational Physics and New Perspectives in Turbulence, pp. 183–189. 2008.
[11] J F Morrison, B J McKeon, W Jiang, A J Smits, “Scaling of the streamwise velocity component in turbulent pipe
flow” J. Fluid Mech., 508, pp. 99- 131, 2004.
[12] D B DeGraaff and J K Eaton, “Reynolds number scaling of the flat plate turbulent boundary layer,” J. Fluid
Mech., 422, pp. 319–346, 2000.
[13] N Hutchins, T B Nickels, I Marusic, and M S Chong, "Hot-wire spatial resolution issues in wall-bounded
turbulence", J. Fluid Mech., 635, pp. 103–136. 2009.
[14] F R Hama, “Boundary layer characteristics for smooth and rough surfaces,” Trans. Soc. Naval Architects Marine
Engrs. 62,333-358, 1954.
[15] R S Azad, S Z Kassab, “New Method of Obtaining Dissipation,” Experiments in Fluids, Vol. 7, pp. 81-87, 1989.

Turbulence Scales in A Compressible Subsonic Boundary Layer at Moderate Reynolds Number

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Turbulence Scales in A Compressible Subsonic Boundary Layer at Moderate Reynolds Number

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

IPASJ International Journal of Mechanical Engineering (IIJME)

Web Site: http://www.ipasj.org/IIJME/IIJME.htm

Turbulence Scales in a Compressible Subsonic

Figure 1 Experimental Facility

Figure 2 Schematic of the Test Section in the Experimental Facility

Volume 6, Issue 12, December 2018 Page 2

Viscous Dissipation, ()

Inertia Dissipation, (I) (2)

Volume 6, Issue 12, December 2018 Page 3

Kolmogorov Length Scale, () (3)

Volume 6, Issue 12, December 2018 Page 4

Figure 5 Normalized experimental velocity distribution compared to

Figure 6 The velocity distribution recorded within the boundary layer

Volume 6, Issue 12, December 2018 Page 5

Table 1: Boundary Layer Quantities

Volume 6, Issue 12, December 2018 Page 6

Figure 9 Normalized streamwise turbulent energy profiles within the

Volume 6, Issue 12, December 2018 Page 7

Figure 11 Dissipation rates as a function of y+

4.2.1 Kolmogorov Microscale ():

Figure 12 Kolmogorov length scales for different dissipation rates

Volume 6, Issue 12, December 2018 Page 8

Figure 13 Taylor microscale () distribution throughout the boundary layer.

Volume 6, Issue 12, December 2018 Page 9

4.2.3 The integral scale ():

and for the inertia case,

Volume 6, Issue 12, December 2018 Page 10

Volume 6, Issue 12, December 2018 Page 11

Volume 6, Issue 12, December 2018 Page 12

Potrebbero piacerti anche