1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Visualization of the structural response of a hypersonic turbulent boundary layer to convex curvature
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1063/1.4761833
/content/aip/journal/pof2/24/10/10.1063/1.4761833
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aip/journal/pof2/24/10/10.1063/1.4761833

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

Rendering of the experimental flow facility. The flow direction is from left to right.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

Schematic representation of the streamline pressure gradients. The curved walls are given by Y = AX 3 + BX 2 (see text for further details). The dashed-dotted line indicates the center of the measurement domains. The origin (X, Y) = (0, 0) is located where the curvature begins. The coordinates x and y are the body intrinsic coordinates of the tangential and wall-normal directions, respectively. Note the axes are not shown on the same scale. Inset shows three-dimensional renderings of the curvature-driven pressure-gradient models.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

Rendering of the experimental arrangement. The flow is from left to right. Laser light can be seen to enter from the top. The flow is imaged with a CCD camera. Note that the knife-edge filter has been omitted for clarity.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

The effects of threshold level on the intermittency. Results are shown for the ZPG boundary layer case but are also representative of the MPG and SPG cases. Open circles show boundary layer intermittency within a ZPG Mach 2.84 boundary layer using the hot-wire anemometry mass flux signal from Selig et al. 45 Open triangles show boundary layer intermittency within a ZPG Mach 4.95 boundary layer using fluctuating Pitot pressures from McClure 46 (the latter data are taken from nalmis 47 ).

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

Schematic illustration of the fractal (box-counting) dimension determination procedure. The object (the boundary layer interface) is covered with area elements of decreasing size, and we observe how the number of required elements varies. If the object exhibits scale similarity, i.e., it looks the same at different levels of magnification (in a statistical sense), then the increase in the number of elements will follow a power law, which is symptomatic of fractal behavior.

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

A series of temporally uncorrelated instantaneous flow visualization images. (Top row) ZPG, (middle row) MPG, (bottom row) SPG. In all cases the flow direction is from left to right. Note that the camera has been rotated in the pressure gradient cases to be parallel with the wall. The exposure time is 500 ns, although the laser pulse duration is 4 ns. The mean boundary layer thicknesses are δ = 9.0, 9.9, 12.9 mm, respectively. Lettered regions are discussed in the text.

Image of FIG. 7.
FIG. 7.

Three-dimensional rendering of the ZPG boundary layer's instantaneous structure. Results show nucleated isosurfaces corresponding to the interface between the boundary layer and freestream flow. The field-of-view of the volume is (x, y, z) ∈ [93.0 mm (12.1δ) (Taylor's hypothesis), 28.6 mm (3.7δ), 28.6 mm (3.7δ)]. The view is looking upstream.

Image of FIG. 8.
FIG. 8.

Examples of temporally uncorrelated instantaneous convective velocity vector fields. (a) ZPG, (b) SPG. Results show the instantaneous convective velocity vector field determined from the cross-correlation of double-pulsed image pairs (0.5 μs time separation). The results are shown in a streamwise convective reference frame of 0.92U , with a 0.1U wall-normal subtraction in the SPG case due to the diverging nature of the expansion. The background shows the corresponding second image. Camera exposure time is 500 ns, although the laser exposure time is 4 ns.

Image of FIG. 9.
FIG. 9.

Two-point spatial correlation functions at various heights within the boundary layer y 0/δ = 0.7, 0.8, and 0.9. (Top row) ZPG, (middle row) MPG, (bottom row) SPG. Contours show 0.5 to 1.0 in increments of 0.05. The results are based on an ensemble size N = 1000 images for each test case.

Image of FIG. 10.
FIG. 10.

Variation of the structure angle θ throughout the boundary layer for the ZPG, MPG, and SPG cases. Inset shows the definition of θ. Results are based on an ensemble size N = 1000 images for each test case. The compressible ZPG boundary layer results of Poggie et al. 21 and Ringuette et al. 44 are shown for comparison. Note that the results have been corrected for the reorientation of the reference frame in order to isolate the effects of the pressure gradient.

Image of FIG. 11.
FIG. 11.

Intermittency profiles within the boundary layer for the ZPG, MPG, and SPG cases. The incompressible (curve-fit) results of Klebanoff 64 are included for comparison. The inset shows a zoomed view of the data.

Image of FIG. 12.
FIG. 12.

Fractal analysis. (a) ZPG, (b) MPG, (c) SPG. The main figure shows an example of the variation of the number of boxes N ɛ against the box size ɛ for a single image. The inner cutoff is the laser sheet thickness, l z , and the outer cutoff is the integral length scale, L x . The fractal dimension d is extracted from the power-law region in between. The upper inset shows the probability density distribution for d. The lower inset shows the results for 100 images. The average (mean) fractal dimension is shown in each figure part along with the corresponding standard deviation, σ d .

Image of FIG. 13.
FIG. 13.

Schematic representation of an idealized conceptual model summarizing the main features observed when the hypersonic boundary layer negotiates convex curvature. Note this model only applies during the initial expansion process and that the sketch is not shown to scale. Annotation arrows represent either motion in the convective reference frame of the coherent motions or to emphasize a qualitative behavior.

Tables

Generic image for table
Table I.

Experimental conditions.

Generic image for table
Table II.

Summary of impulse parameters in convex curvature-driven pressure-gradient studies. MPG and SPG refer to where more than one pressure-gradient strength was considered.

Generic image for table
Table III.

Summary of the fractal dimension of some classical turbulent flows. Note that the rule of codimension has been used where appropriate.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aip/journal/pof2/24/10/10.1063/1.4761833
2012-10-26
2014-04-25
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Visualization of the structural response of a hypersonic turbulent boundary layer to convex curvature
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aip/journal/pof2/24/10/10.1063/1.4761833
10.1063/1.4761833
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM