Multi-scale entropy analysis and conditional sampling of the velocity increment in a transitional boundary layer

Author(s):  
Wen Zhang ◽  
Peiqing Liu ◽  
Hao Guo ◽  
Qiulin Qu
2003 ◽  
Vol 125 (1) ◽  
pp. 28-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ralph J. Volino ◽  
Michael P. Schultz ◽  
Christopher M. Pratt

Conditional sampling has been performed on data from a transitional boundary layer subject to high (initially 9%) freestream turbulence and strong (K=ν/U∞2dU∞/dx as high as 9×10−6) acceleration. Methods for separating the turbulent and nonturbulent zone data based on the instantaneous streamwise velocity and the turbulent shear stress were tested and found to agree. Mean velocity profiles were clearly different in the turbulent and nonturbulent zones, and skin friction coefficients were as much as 70% higher in the turbulent zone. The streamwise fluctuating velocity, in contrast, was only about 10% higher in the turbulent zone. Turbulent shear stress differed by an order of magnitude, and eddy viscosity was three to four times higher in the turbulent zone. Eddy transport in the nonturbulent zone was still significant, however, and the nonturbulent zone did not behave like a laminar boundary layer. Within each of the two zones there was considerable self-similarity from the beginning to the end of transition. This may prove useful for future modeling efforts.


Author(s):  
Ralph J. Volino ◽  
Michael P. Schultz ◽  
Christopher M. Pratt

Conditional sampling has been performed on data from a transitional boundary layer subject to high (initially 9%) free-stream turbulence and strong K=ν/U∞2dU∞/dxas high as9×10-6 acceleration. Methods for separating the turbulent and non-turbulent zone data based on the instantaneous streamwise velocity and the turbulent shear stress were tested and found to agree. Mean velocity profiles were clearly different in the turbulent and non-turbulent zones, and skin friction coefficients were as much as 70% higher in the turbulent zone. The streamwise fluctuating velocity, in contrast, was only about 10% higher in the turbulent zone. Turbulent shear stress differed by an order of magnitude, and eddy viscosity was three to four times higher in the turbulent zone. Eddy transport in the non-turbulent zone was still significant, however, and the non-turbulent zone did not behave like a laminar boundary layer. Within each of the two zones there was considerable self-similarity from the beginning to the end of transition. This may prove useful for future modeling efforts.


AIAA Journal ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 37 ◽  
pp. 1127-1129 ◽  
Author(s):  
Avi Seifert ◽  
Howard P. Hodson

2021 ◽  
Vol 918 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zachary R. Murphree ◽  
Christopher S. Combs ◽  
Wesley M. Yu ◽  
David S. Dolling ◽  
Noel T. Clemens

Abstract


1970 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 283-325 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leslie S. G. Kovasznay ◽  
Valdis Kibens ◽  
Ron F. Blackwelder

The outer intermittent region of a fully developed turbulent boundary layer with zero pressure gradient was extensively explored in the hope of shedding some light on the shape and motion of the interface separating the turbulent and non-turbulent regions as well as on the nature of the related large-scale eddies within the turbulent regime. Novel measuring techniques were devised, such as conditional sampling and conditional averaging, and others were turned to new uses, such as reorganizing in map form the space-time auto- and cross-correlation data involving both the U and V velocity components as well as I, the intermittency function. On the basis of the new experimental results, a conceptual model for the development of the interface and for the entrainment of new fluid is proposed.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document