Ac Complex Turbulent Flows
Kwlo
Volume I Objetive, Ealuaionof Data, Speili-ctinsc)I T stCases, Discuss!on, ardPosIron,...
15 downloads
667 Views
26MB Size
Report
This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form
Ac Complex Turbulent Flows
Kwlo
Volume I Objetive, Ealuaionof Data, Speili-ctinsc)I T stCases, Discuss!on, ardPosIron,,- Papers
D
V. Ed: fed by
S.J. K';ne.
j
G. '. L i1ey
12
16
Approv(d?ý
097
or puPi.-
UNCLASSIFIED
"•ECURITT
CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (When Date.Entered)\
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE I.
2.
REPORT NU•M'ýER
GOVT
READ INSTRUCTIONS BEFORE COMPLETING FORM ACCESSION NO.
RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER
3.
TYPE OF REPORT 8 PERIOD COVERED
S.
4
THE 1980-81 AFOSR-HTTM-STANFORD CONFERENCE ON COMPLEX TURBULENT FLOWS: COMPARISON OF COMPU-I STATION AND EXPERIMENT-VOIUM1 7.
A jr-oR(a)
SS J
SBJ
,
INTERIM 6.
PERFORMING O-AG. REPORT NUMBER
3.
CONTRACT OR GRANT NUMBER(s)
KLINE.
CANTWELL
F49620-80-C-0027
G M LILLEY 10.
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
9.
STANFORD UNIVERSITY MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT STANFORD, CA 94305
AREA A WORK UNIT NUMBERS
61102F 2307/Al
September 1980
AIR FORCE OFFICE OF SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH/NA 14.
REPORT DATE
12.
11. CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS
BOLLING AFB,
PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT, TASK
DC 20332
13. NUMSEROF PAGES
632
MONITORING AGENCY NAME & ADDRESS(Il different from Controlling Office)
IS.
SECURITY CLASS. (of this report)
Unclassified 15..
DECLASSI FICATION "DOWNGRADING SCHEDULE
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Repoet)
16.
Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited.
DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of the abetract entered In Block 30. It dlfferent ban Report)
17.
IS. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Proceedings of the 1980-81 AFOSR-HTTM-Stanford Conference on Complex and Experiment, Stanford, CA, Turbulent Flows: Comparison uf Computation. 3-6 September 1980 19. KEY WORDS (Continue on reverse side At necessary and Identity by block mnmber)
COMPLEX TURBULENT FLOWS EXPERIMENTAL DATA ATTACHED BOUNDARY LAYERS "SEPARATED FLOWS 'TWO-DIMENSIONAL FLOW
THREE-DIMENSIONAL FLOW
20. ABSTRACT (Continue, on reverse side If nec.4.ery and identify by Maock nmiber)
Thisvolume contains the Proc edings of the 1980 Meeting of the 1980-81 AVOSR-HTTM-Stanford Conferenýe on Complex Turbulent Flows: Comparison of Computation and Experiment.,&he Conference includes two meetings. The first, -rted-here,,nhad the goal of establishing a data base of -Uet cases9 for comparison with computations. This volume contains a record of the proceedings of the 1980 meeting and a display of the test cases used in the 1981 meeting The main sections of the volume include: for comparison with computations.
DD
,
1473
.y/~OITION OF I NOV 65 IS OBSOLETE
UNCLASSIFIED SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE ("hen Dare Entered)
SECURITY
A
CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE(Whon. Dal.
&Ln,.fod)
.11)Pictorial summary charts providing a compact picture of the nature of the test cases. (2)-.,fntroducticn: The history and nature of the Lonference. (3,ýThree position papers covering: (a) data needs for computational fluid dyneumics; (b) sotac improvements to the theory of upcertainty analysis and theuse of that theory for the present Conference;, (c) description of Data Library. (ý) Description of test cases including: &samnary; discussion;
specifications for cornputations;! output plots for the test cases. (5)-'. 'Reports of ad-hoc committees on topics of general interest; general discussion; and conclusions. )Index to Flow Cases.
(6) Lists oft Participants, Data Evaluators;
By-f
4
r -ut _Di~st
Dlj;
ib
S
1
ezj
UNLSSFE .
.
SF
.701
'.~U!V.
URT
CL
SSFCA
1%
F
-1..
-f
~f
d
AFOSP,-TR.
.*
0QO
COM.',EX TURBULENT
•;
FLOWS
[Com utation•
THE 1980-81 AFOSR-HTTM-STANFORD CONFERENCE ON COMPLEX TURBULENT FLOWS: COMPARISON OF COMPUTATION AND EXPERIMENT VOLUME I --
OBJECTIVES,
EVALUATION OF DATA,
SPECIFICATIONS OF TEST CASES, DISCUSSION AND POSITION PAPERS Proceedings of
the 1980 Conference
Stanford University,
Stanford,
September
"Edited by
S.
J.
Kline,
B.
J.
3-6,
California
1980
Cantwell,
and G. M. Lilley
Published a.d Distithuted by Tlhernosciences Division Mechanical Engineering Department Stanford University Stanford, California
•:,
. .- .
.-.
k~~~~~~~.Apr.rov.. -.. ...
..
. . .
-
.
'.
'.
'".;
Editors
Stephen J. Mechanical
Kline Engineering Department
Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305,
USA
Brian J. Cantwell Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305, USA Geoffrey M. Lilley Department oif Aeronautics and Astronautics University of Southampton Southampton S09 5NH, England
Production Editor and Conference Secretary: Ditter Peschzke-Koedt Palo Alto. CA 94301, USA
ISBN. Cc)
1981 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University. All rights L.C.
reserved.
?rinted in
the United
Stats of America.
81-0908
Stanford,
California, USA 94305, (First Printing)
1981.
'-4
•-, .".
.
.
-
.
.
•
.
....
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The
Conference
the
fullest
and generously Evaluators, of
ipation
given.
Session
France,
india,
of America, The by the a
Air
tributions
were
grant.
is
was
critical
Naval
to
u;seful
grew
crease
in
cost, and
purposes
were
Program
of
Dr.
also
Funds to cover
the by
impartial-
and engineering communities
was sought
are extended Recorders,
from
process
with
been held.
to all
the Data Takers,
whose names appear
The 1980 Conference
Norway,
was
Switzerland,
]
Data
the
List
1
attetded by
Canada,
(Australia,
Sweden,
in
their help and partic-
Without
14 countries
Scientific
England,
United
NASA Ames
the
of
The
States
J
,'$
the
steadfast
spent
secure
the
much
funds
from
the
to
by
of NASA,
Foundation.
the
specific to fund-
support
of AFOSR
of
Dr.
James Wilson
When the volume of cases a
to
resulting
organize
complete
Heat
Centers
Con-
The
with
effort
NAG 2-79.
Bushnell of NASA with regard
Science
the work.
Transfer
and
found
concerned
Funds
for
Turbulence
I A
to be
and considerable
the
-W
of compressible
under Grant
Research
National Dennis
estimates,
Wilson
Center
supplied
AF F49620-80-C-0027
processing
on data
and Lewis
the Conference.
initial
supplied
work
Research
Langley
and by
conference was
this
Research under contract for
support
the
the work of
for
Rubesin and Dr.
success
thereby
the
•
Research
beyond
the Conference
this volume.
in
sponsorship
acknowledged.
the
far
agencies
by
Morris
gratefully
thanks
learning
a cooperative
the aims of
Netherlands,
Added
also made
Dr.
as
and Yugoslavia).
supplied
of
Office
ing
Japan,
Force OffLce of
was
viewed
and Technical
financial
predecessor
assistance of
special
participants
West Germany,
U.S.
To achieve
could not have
invited
principal
best
1980 Conference
Israel,
flow cases
U.S.
Our
to the
160
is
of the scienttfic
Chairmen,
the Conference
approximately
"-. "p.
cooperation
Participants
and
a whole
as
the research community.
within ity,
1980
in-
government
some
special
Mechanics
(HTTM)
Industiial Affiliates Program of the Stanford Thermosciences Division. p] an overdraft in the base contract were generously supplied by the Stan-
ford School of Engineering. Special B.
Bradshaw, who
thanks
worked
personnel
J. long
are accorded
and
problems.
Host
confercnqp
Committee,
The
students
who
of
who
served
made as
and
J.
i-.
Ferziger
beginning
ingredients
this
sort all
thanks. for
in
1977
J.
Kline
on
the
plans,
and enthusiasm
of
(Chairman), and G.
Sovran,
organization,
the members
P.
and
of
this
the success of the Conference. have
local
been held without
arrangements,
Recorders
and Aides
Special appreciation
important
S.
M. W. Rubesin,
Reshotko, in
confidence
would
the
Technical
E.
Launder,
continuing
these we add our grateful ston
E.
thoughtfully
committee were important No
B.
Cantwell,
the Organizing Committee:
assistance
iii
in
and
the
(see
list
is
the willing help of many
Stanford
on page
giver, to Profs.
studying
data
graduate
607); J.
the
to all P.
and closing
Johnmany "'U
Professor J. K. Eaton organized the aides .'md
special gap-5.
ýupcrvtscd all
physi~cal
Professors W. C. Reynolds and R. J. m.,-Eat lent
arrangements in a very able fashion.
the support of the Thermosciencee Division and the Department of Muchanical Engineering qý important Poniits.
?rofessor M. V. Morkovin acted as a senior advisor on many
isasues. The arduous and critical task of recording the data on magnetic tape the
students
L
-B-ardina,
La
was
graphs
files
and
preparing
under
the
djirection
data
of
handled
13.J. Cantwell
by
a cadre
includ~iig:
of
organizing
Stanford graduate
Jalal
Abhjace,
Bob Carella, Aim McDaniel, R~anga jayaranan, Charles Natty, Ken Schultz,
Juan Tony
Strawa, R~am Subbarao, and Jim Talleghani,
The Conference waa fortunate in having the aid of a very able secretarial staff. is needed
Particuli~r
praise
typing and
for the
responsible fashion. Thompson and
For
flitter
organization of
Peschcke-Koedt,
who ',as responsible
for all
the paperwork system in a highly independent
and
Thanks are also due Barbara ;1omsy, Ann Tbaraki, Ruth Korb, Diana
Anne Voilmay?r,
for various secretarial duties and for their enthusiapm
and support. We are also
indebted to Professor S. Honami
torial. summaries known informally as
for his work in producing the
the "Honami Charts" and to Prof.
pic-
D. J. Cockrell
for special assistance in preparing documents and other matters during the period just before the 1980 meeting of the Conference.
iv
d
PREFACE This
volume
HTTH-Stanford Experiment.
September base of
addition,
the
USA
(ii) "
accurate
the
two
goal
the
Flows:
meetings.
this
of
the
first
output
of
cases
in
building on
and
The
first,
the of
other
with
Department of Mechanical
herein,
the test
flows
models and or
Computation
the establishment
library on magnetic
proceedings
AFOSR-
The second meeting,
computations
certain
1980-81
reported
meeting was
computer
the
of
Comparison
with computations.
test
Information
1980 Meeting
the
tape
deemed
cases. in
Engineering,
was of
a
held In
permanent
sufficiently
testing output data
and
in
com-
library can be ob-
Stanford,
California,
94305. This volume has
tvo
to
test
display
the
purposes: cases
(i)
to record
that will
the proceedings of
be used in
the
the 1980 meeting;
1981 meeting
for
comparison
The volume has six major elements:
I.
Pictorial summary the test cases.
2.
Introduction:
3.
Three position papers covering: (a) Data needs for computational fluid dynamics; (b) Some improvements to the theory of uncertainty analysis and the use oL that theory for the present Conference; (c) De=cription of Data Library.
4.
Description of test cases including: summary; discussion; "tions for computations; output plots for the test cases.
5.
Reports of discussion;
6.
Lists of Participants,
The l
Introduction,
Boundary
"*
includes
for use
flows.
Turbulent
for comparison
from the editors at
cluding
and
Complex
the
of
has established a data
holds
with computations.
.
Proceedings
compares
Conference
turbulent
tained
1980;
1981,
library and
on
Conference
3-6,
14-19,
the
the
"test cases"
September
plex
-
The
data
complete .
Conference
held
form;
contains
Free
the
earlier
Layccs and Shear
"The
ad-hoc committees and conclusions.
by S. 1968
the
Layers,
deeply
a compact
on
topics
Data Evaluators; J.
Kline,
of
picture of
the nature
of
general
the
The
involved
in
computational the
on
general
the
Conference
Computation
also
of
in-
Turbuleult
boundary Layers
discusses
the
problems
and the special procedures employed the 1980 meeting of the Conference.
fluid dynamics
preparatory
of
on Compressible
Introduction
the present Conference preparatory work and in
interest;
history
Conference
1969 and 1972 NASA Conferences respectively.
specifica-
Index to Flow Cases.
summarizes
AFOSR-IFP-Stanford
paper on data needs in all
providing
The history and nature of the Conference.
that arose which led to both in the two-year-long
viduals
charts
work,
P.
is the work of Bradshaw,
B.
J.
six indiCantwell,
V .
.
...
•
.
°
J.
H.
Ferziger,
S.
J.
Kline,
M.
R.
Rubesin,
and
C.
C.
Horstman.
The
first
four
authors worked
on the draft seriatim followed by several iterations concerning differ-
ences
P.
between
conditions.
The
which have ferences
Bradshaw final
two
The
made
on
questions
independent It
paper on the data
library;
the author
in
the
by one
Sources
on
case on
and
boundary
compressible
to note
flows
that somse dif-
remains among the authors. the paper
Since
should be widely use-
further clarifications.
the n.ture,
function and
the
nomenclature
the central responsibility
for distribution of current
Each
numerics
is important
Cantwell has assumed
paper.
of information. followed
library describes
B. J.
are
provided
over time, to still
of
comments
to have appeared before,
lead,
the library.
is
Ferziger
for completeness.
seems
struction of
files
H.
regarding the best statement of needs still
and will hopefully
the
J.
authors
been consolidated
no paper on this topic ful,
and
magnetic
for con-
vcrsions of the library
tape
consists
of
two
or
more
File I contains a detailed description of the given case.
or
more
files
of trormalized
data.
of
A sample
File
1 is
This
included
in
this paper. The tant
paper
topic that
uncertainties
seems
in
computation; In
on uncertainty
are,
attention,
data
in
Moffat
order has
uncertainty advances are
of
germane
plots
are
were
for
1981 meeting were
cases
discussion
the
data
but are
and
When
are
:
be
with
paper
of
significant,
properly
sustained
Moffat
from
in
and ape-
the
important
in
the
R.
J.
area of
conceptual
The advances
many
in
1968.
interpreted.
interest
contributes
data
in
the uncertainties
Kline and McClintock).
used
imply
selected
but
size.
also
for
a case
presented.
necessarily
of manageable
future work,
Individuals
the comparison
displayed.
does
of
to the uncertainty
were not needed
on eotimates of
impor-
the 1968 meeting the
small compared
of data uncertainty
focused
present
accepted
and
the
In
of each test case follow
meeting
pleteness
the
to
summary
not
some circles.
discussion an
by Moffat
laboratories,
and
thus
of the current voliue.
presentaticns
Wlen cases
for
with computatic
few
in
form a logical portion
output
to be
the older standard (of
particularly
ing.
the
analysis.
beyond
The
had
that comparisons one
in
re-opens
the data uncertainties are frequently
therefore,
been
and
for the most part,
special considerations
the 1980-81 Conference,
cial
extends
to have been neglected
the data
thus
annlynio
any
the
was
The
the order and
not
lack
in
order
to
meeting,
used
failure
not only on
in
1981
to
in
in
the 1981
test
of
and
1981
the
meeting, case
the data;
in
in
the
complete
only the
final
trustworthiness
reasonably
cases.
1980 meet-
the specifications
a given
basis of
form a
Some test eases will be stored
not employed
the
use
qua!ity the
format of the
set
1981 cases
ane comof
test
the lihrary as usable for
The
library
index will show
such flows. The the
specifications
1980 meeting
where
for
computations
they were
given
are in
not
displayed
a variety
in
of written
the
form
(rather
presented than
in
tabular)
I7
forms. dard
All
specifications
tabular
formity have
of
form to provide
presentation.
been
excessive
either
nmber
plots.
of
some
short
The
data
time,
noted
above,
interest
procedure
is
to focus,
not only what is
in
some
community
of
the
order
by
Division
of
with
the
are
of
the
data
should
is
evaluators,
Volume
S.
J.
year later. the
art,
The
important
in
the
an
with
the
a relaplots
Introduction;
differences well
requires
to the
from
further
they
the usual
as agreements
in
order
researches.
remain vexing to the
reliability
of data.
Several
of
for future data takers.
appears
appear at
in
two
places .
of
this
the end
each specification.
Honami,
while
Engineering
he was
A complete set
section.
Separate
These charts a
Department
visitor at
to
Stanford
were
the in
ini-
Therrao1979-80.
the volume who assume responsibil-
from notes made during
to
within
in
the
future.
by
G. M. to
class,
past Hence,
Of
future data a
are
a
rich
phsec ard
particular
takers."
that
in
in
number most
for anyone
the the
comments
large
can and
source
note
The
surprisingly
procedures
they
preparatnry
Lilley.
include
data
the
by of
cases
planning
flow situations.
Evaluation
of
Data,
presented here.
three volumes
time of publication.
flow of
Conc-isions,
including both
and
the "advices
each
on related
I--Objectives,
Methods,
of
Lo avoid
rests
1981 covering needed changes.
recorded
by the editors of
Kline,
sion and Position Papers--is
*
or
specifcatLionM
of opinion as
flows
with
Mechanical
difficulties
be avoided
the
Shinji
the reference
indicating
files,
for a variety of reasons,
flows
were drawn
by
future experiments
Somies,
file)
deletions
the final copy.
conclusions primarily
data
The
respect
of
included
Professor
ity for any errors in
remarks
data
evaluators
include discussion by an unusuatly large gather-
that,
Final editing has been completed
conclusions
meetings.
summary charts
charts
prepared
the
(in
by data
and uni-
At !cast one Cormputor group was asked to
should make uaeful contribut!ons
numerical
meeting,
requested
these
but also what still
topics
particularly
pictorial
The
for
procedures are
committees
on
between
of differences
known,
of ad-hoc
leading experts
these reports
*-
lacking
with plots,
into the present volume.
future
the recordatton
The reports
sciences
plots
errata were issued early in
the discussion
may be of
tially
were
to Computers.
These errata have been incorporated
the
few
to a stan-
and
and
in
a
responstbility
discrepancies
difficulties
sectors
clear coincidence
editors
some
report such
The
by the
in
releaues
research
convurted
large variety of flows and the amount of data processed
the first
ing of
claritLy,
instances
because
in
As
were
Committee of the Conference.
Because of the
occurred
Increasud
In
eliminated
Organizing
tively
for computations
and
Outpu..
Specifications
Test
Cases,
Discus-
The companion Volumes 11 and lIl--Taxonof
should form a
of
Compu-ations
will
relatively complete
the accomplishments
and
Unlike the 1968 Conference,
appear
roughly
picture of
the
a
state
the remaining difficulties,
at the
which largely completed
a chapter of
vii
•'•••-L'
•
-"-i!-=
.--
J'
-
k• --
-,•,'-',,-•"-
-
-
"
-
•,••
•-•
-.
.
..
•
.•••£..-•
•
•
..
I reseatch work, computation. done
and
an
direction
"The is
present
improved
it
picture of
editors of
teer
fortunate
individuals, efforts of
critical
CompleLe
potential
remaining
needs.
the
needs
users with it
should
test case.
to coot.Mnate. and has
In out
These data evaluators new
The
only been
the participants
performed
to emphasize
effort of a large
role has been carried
but also
will not
provide
th!s volume also wý.nt
rather a cooperative
few
conference abould
a
for eil-her key
data or
to what
also provide
a
can he clearer
for future research.
have been a
the
fowevrt,
iuncttons
by
nc
that the work is
not theirs;
fraction of the research community, task is
possible
and was too through
the willing
the 1980 meeting and, the
data
evaluators
,nly assinilated
not unders:ood
large
hence,
any one or even
and largely volunin
this volume,
th:
whose names appear on each
and
evaluated the literature,
req,,ested at
or
foi
it
which ve
the outset.
It
is
largely owing to the efforts of the data evaluators that this volume has become possible.
S
3J: K1 in P
B.
J.
Cantwell.•:
G. M. Lilley JuLy
1981
viii
-_-.
--
--
-
.
"-.
-
.
,.
...
- .
. .
...
"
-
-..
--.-
.
-:
-.
"
.
.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgments . .......... . Preface . . General Committees . ........... ................ xv Program: 1980 M'eeting on D;tto . ........ )CVJ General Nomenclature .. ........................................................ xx Pictorial Summary .. ......................................................... xxiii INTRODUCTICN (S. J. Kline) ...................................................... POSITION PAPERS
EXPEKIMENTAL DATA NEEDS FOR COMPUTATIONAL FLU'ID DYNAMICS --A POSITION PAPER (P. Bradshaw, 3. J. Caniwell, J. H. Ferziger, and S. J. Kline wtth imnlents by M. Rubesin and C. Horstmar.). ..............
23
CONTRIBUTIONS r0 THlE THEORY OF UNCERTAINITY ANALYSIS FOR SINGLE-SAMPLE EXPERIM4ENTS (Robert J. Moffat)..................................40 THE DATA LIBRARY (Brian Cantwell)...................................................57 O~~igcussior. o' The Data Libray..................................................79
I
SESSION I Flow 0610,
At-.ached
Boundary Layers
Summary...............................................................86
Specifications .. ............................................... 83 Flow 0210, Effect of Free-Stream Turbulence on Boundary Layers Summary. .. ..................................................... 82 Discussion .. ................................................... 91. Specifications .. ............................................... 93 Flow 02.30, Boundary Layer Flows with Streamwise Curvature Suimmary. .. ..................................................... 94 Discussion .. ................................................... 96 Specifications .. ............................................... 98 SESSION I1
Flow 0240, Turbulent Bolindary Layers with Suction or ",lowing (Incompressible) Flow 8300, Turbulent Boundary L-ayers with Suction or Blowing (Compressible) Summary .. ...................................................... 112 Discussion. .................................................... 117 Specifications. ........................... ...................118 Flow 0330, Free Shear Layer with Streamwise Curvature Suniinary .. ...................................................... Dlscission. .................................................... Specifications. .............................................
ix
owl
130 133 134
-
Page Flow 0510, Turbulent Secondary
j
Flows of the First Kind ... .. ..
139 145 146
.........................
..
162 168
........................... ......................... .......................
... .. ...
170 174 176
... ..
178 180
........................... ......................... . ......................
Summary .............. Discussion ............. Spectficationu ...........
I
SESSION III Three-Dimqnsional Turbulent Boundary Layer
Flow 0250,
Summary ........................................ Discus ton ............. Planar Mixing Layer
Flow 031C,
Summary .............. Dits-,sston ............. Specifications. ..........
Flow 0150, Two-Dimensional Channel Flow with Periodic Perturbations ........................... .........................
Summary .............. Discussion .............
-
SESSION IV
.
Flow 0110, Corner Flow Data Evaluation (Secondary Flow of the Second Kind) ... ........................... Summary .............. ......................... Discuasion ....................... .......................
Specifications ...........
182 188
..
189
..
213 217
...
218
..
218
Entry Zone of Round Tube
Flow 0130,
........................... Sumr.ary ........................ Discussion ............. ......................... NUMZRICAL CHECKS (E.
Reahotko) ..........
....................... .
Discussion .............
........................
1
SESSION V Flow 0410,
Fvaluation of Bluff-Body, Summary
.
Near-Wake Flows
........................
.
Dtsr'iss I.................. Specifications ........... Flow 0440,
......
220
226 227
L
Two-Dimensional Stalled Airfoil ........................... ......................... .......................
Summary .............. Discussion ........... Speciticiitlons ........... Flow 0140,
....................... .......................
Diffuser Flows
'Unseparated; and Flow 0430,
Suumary .............. Discuss!on ............. Speri(icatio,,ub ...........
... .. ...
234 246 247
Diffuser Flows--Separated
........................... ......................... .......................
... ... ..
253 258 259
Y • •
.
: . •-- 2=.:• -•, ::. .i -
.:2
. - .- ,-,- - -.. ..
=. .
.-" . - - -.-.
"
" - =,
. ..
i
'
,i -l
"
i
-"
.
"
*..4
,;
- " " " . ..
"
"
"
SESSION VI Flow 0420,
Backward-Facing
Step Flow
Summary ................. Discussion ................ Specifications . . . . . .
........................... ......................... . . . . . . .
AN OVERVIEW OF THE PREDICTIVE TEST CASES (J. Case P1,
Flow 0110,
Asymmetric Flow in
.
K. Eaton) ...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.. .. . .
275 280 281
..
284
.. ..
287 269 290
.
297 299 300
...........
a Square Duct
Summary ................. ........................... Discussion ........................ ......................... Specifications ............... ....................... Case P2,
Flow 0420,
Backward-Facing Step: Variable
Opposite-Wall Angle
Summary ..................................... Discussion ................ ......................... Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Case P3, Flow 0420, Backward-Facing Step: Turned Flow Passage
.
.
.
.
.
Summary ................. ........................... Specifications ............... ....................... Case P4,
... ..
301 303
...
304
Flow 0420,
Backward-Facing Step: Variable Area Ratio Summary ................. ........................... Specifications
Case !y, Flow in
...............
.......................
a Planar Diffuser with Tailpipe ......
Cahe ?6, Shock-Boundary Layer
Interaction .........
Discussion ........................ Case Pe
.
Transonic Airfoil ............... Discussion ................ Discussion,
Flow 9000,
305 ..............
.................
..
310 31l
... ..
......................... Cases .....
............
312 312 313
Flows with Buoyancy Forces Summary ................. ........................... Discussion ...... .........................
Flow 0340,
306
.........................
.........................
General Predictive
..
...
314 316
Flows with Swirl Summary ...................
...........................
..
317
SESSION VII Flow 0360, Wakes of Round Bodies, and Flow 0390, Axisymmetric Boundary Layer with Strong Streamwise and Transverse Curvature Summary .i............. ......................... Discussion ........................ ......................... Specfications ....................... ....................... Flow 0380,
Wakes of Two-Dimensional
.
3327 331 332
Bodies
Summary ................. ........................... Supplement to Summary ........... .................... Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.. .. .. .
340 346 356
xi
.2
M
*Flow
Summary . . Discussion
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
Specifications .............. -'
Flows 8100/8200,
Supersonic
Flow over a
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
. .
(Insulated/Cooled
364 366
..
36'
... .. ..
369 374 375
...
378
..
388
..
393
. .
Lu an
...........................
Summary .................
. .
. .
Wall)
........................... ......................... .......................
Flows 8400/8410, Boundary Layers In an Adverse Pressurc Cr~di!ent Adxsymmetric Internal Flow/Two-Dimensional Flow
....................
Supplement to Summary .........
.........................
Discussion ................ Specifications ..............
'
. .
.......................
Flat Plate
Summary ................. Discussion ................ Specificattons ..............
*
* --
Page
8500, Compressibility Effects or Frý:e-Shear Laer
.......................
394
SESSION VIII -
Flow 0370,
Romogeneoun
Turbulent
Flows
Summary... .........
. . .........................
Flow 0260,
Turbulent Wall
405
...........
411 412
......................... .....................
Discussion ........................ Pictorial Summary ............. Jet
Summary ................. Discuosion ................ Specifications ..............
........................... ......................... .......................
... .. ..
434 443 444
... ..
458 465 466
... ..
482 484
SESSION IX Flows 8610,
8630,
8640,
Compressible
Flows Over Deflected
SLmmary ................. Discussion ................ Spe-Aficattons ........................... Flow 8680,
Axisymmetric Near-Wake
Surfaces
........................... .........................
Flow (Supersonic) ........................... .........................
Summary ................. Discussion ................
SESSION X
Flows 8650, 86b0, 8600, 8690, Shock Wave--Boundary-Layer Interaction Flows Summary ................. Discussion ................ Specifications ..............
........................... ......................... .......................
.. .. ..
486 495 498
.. .. ..
523 530 531
SESSION XI Flow 8620,
Transonic A.irfoils Summary ................. Discussion ................ Specifications ..............
_
........................... ......................... .......................
xii
#t,:.•.,•.
,
•,
-
-
•
"
..
--
.
.'- --
-
L"
Flow 8670,
Pointed Axisymmetric Bodies at Angle of Attack (Supersonic)
..
543 546 547
... ..
549 549
........................... .........................
... ..
551 551
...........................
...
552
........................... Summary ................. ......................... Discusnion ........................ ....................... "Specitications ..............
...
Flow 8310, Variation in Cf/Cfo for Blowing/Suction with Mach Number Summary ................ Discussion ................
........................... .........................
SESSION XII Transient Flows Summary ................ Discussion ................ Flow 0350,
Ship Wakes Summary .................
Flow 0290,
Laminar-Turbulent Transition Summary
554 554
............................
"Discussion ............................... Flow 0470, Flow Over the Trailing Edge of Blades and Airfoils ........................... Summary ............... ......................... Discussion ................ -Specifications ............... ........................
... .. ..
555 558 559
... .. ..
567 571 573
Flow 0280, Relaminarizing Flows ........................... ......................... ....................... Specifications .............. Summary ...............
"Discussion ................
SESSION XIII
"Ad-Hoc
-
Committee Report on Hot-Wire Anemometry at Low Mach Numbers ... .....
583
Ad-Hoc Committee Report on Use of Hot-Wire Anemometers in Compressible Flows
586
Ad-Hoc Committee Report on Free-Shear Layers .....
...
588
Ad-Hoc Committee Report on Turbulence Management and Control of Large-Eddy Structure ................... ............................... ...
590
Closing Discussion on Reports from Ad-Hoc Committees ...
...
591
...
592
Closing Discussion on Sessions I Through XII. ..... Report of the Evaluation Committee
.
.
................
............
................
595
...................
SESSION lIV
"Plans for
1981 and Beyond ..............
.........................
xiii
..
596
CONCLUSIONS
605
.
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
607
.*
GROUP PHO'fuGRAPIIS A AND B. LIST OF DATA EVALUATORS.
.....................................................
618
.......................................................
NUMERICAL INDEX OF FLOW GASES AND DATA LIBRARY TAPE ..
xiv
622 .........................
624
471
S.J.
B.E.
I
Kline
E. Reshotko
Launder GENERAL COMMITTEES
B.J.
Cantwell
M.W.
Rubesin
Organizing Committee__ Stephen Kline, Stanford University,
Chairman
Peter Bradshaw, Imperial College, London Brian Cantwell, Stanford University Brian Launder, University of Manchester, Manchester Eli Reshotko, Case-Western Reserve University Morris Rubesin, NASA-Ames Research Center Sovran,
Gino P.
General
Motors Research
A
Laboratories G. Sovran
Bradshaw Evaluation Committee, H. D. R. P.
M. V.
W. Emmons,
Harvard
1981 Meeting
llniver'sity,
Chairman
Chapman, NASA-Ames and Stanford University G. Hill, University of British Columbia G. M. Lilley, University of Southampton Marvin Lubert, General Electric, KAPL Morkovin, Illinois Institute of Technology W. C. Reynolds, Stanford University P. J. Roache, Consultant J. Stegev, Stanford University Host Committee at Stanford Brian Cantwell John K. Eaton Joel H. Ferziger James P. Johnston Stephen J. Kline Robert J. Moffat William C. Reynolds
xv
"".. ;
. -.
.
.
¾
,
.
.
"
"~-.
.
-
.
A>
-
PROGRAM:
1980
MEETING
ON
DATA
THE 1980-81 AFOSR-HTTH-STANTORD CONFERENCE ON COMPARISON OF COMPUTATION AND EXPERIMENT COMPLE: TURBULENT FLOWS:
8:30-8:50
8:50-10:00 am,
SESSION I
Chairman: V. C. Patel Technical Recorders: R.
September 3,
Wednesday, Subbarao,
1980
Parikh
P.
Present and Future--B.
Past,
Cantwell
8:50-9:15
(1)
The Data Library:
9:15-9:30
(2)
Flow 0210: Effect of Free-Stream Turbulence--P.
9:30-10:00
(3)
Flow 0230:
Coffee & Refreshments
10:30-12:00 noon,
B. Launder Chairman: Technical Recorders: 10:30-11:10
(1)
Flow 0240:
11:10-11:35
(2)
Flow 0330:
11:35-12:00
(3)
Bradshaw
Boundary Layer with Streamwise Wall Curvature -- T. Simon/S. Honami
10:00 -10:30 SESSION II
Kline
and Procedures--S.J.
Framework;
Goals,
INTRODUCTION:
September
Weduesday,
R.
Childs,
P.
3,
1980
N. Joubert
Boundary Layers with Blowing/Suction -- L. C. Squire (E. P. Sutton)
Free Shear Layer with Streamwise Curvature -- '. Bradshaw Flow 0510: Pressure-Driven Secondary Flow--R. B. Dean 12:00 -1:30
SESSTON 111
1:30 -3:00
Chairman:
J.
P.
pm,
Lunch 3,
September
Wednesday,
1980
Johnston
Technical Recorders:
E.
Adams,
I.
P.
Castro
Boundary Layers--D.
1:30-2:10
(1)
Flow 0250: Three-Dimensional B. van den Berg
2:10-2:35
(2)
Flow 0310: Planar Mixing Layer--S.
2:35-3:00
(3)
Flow 0150: Channel Flow with Superposed Waves--M. 3:00-3:30
SESSION IV
3:30-5:00 pm,
Birch Acharya
Refreshments Wednesday,
September
W. C. Reynolds Chairman: A. Cutler, Technical Recorders:
3,
A.K.M.F.
1980 Hussaiin
3:30-4:10
(1)
Flow 0110: Entry into a Rectangular Duct--F.
4:10-4:35
(2)
Flow 0130: Entry Zone of Round Tube--J.
4:35-5:00
(3)
Numerical Checks--E.
Reshotko
xvi
SoA
Humphreys/
Gessner
B. Jones
*1
PRLJRAM:
1980 MEETING ON DATA
SESSION V
8:30 -10:00
am,
Thursday,
September 4, 1980
=I
Chairman: A. Roshko Technical Recorders:
A.
Strawa,
H.
L.
Moses
8:30-8:55
(1)
Flow 0410:
Circular Cylinder and Related -- B. Cantwell
8:55-9:20
(2)
Flow 0440:
Stalled Airfoil--A.
9:20-10:00
(3)
Flows 0140 and 0430: Diffuser Flows--R. 10:00 -10:30
Bluff Bodies
Wadcock L.
SimpRon
Coffee and Refreshments
10:30-10:55
(1)
Flow 0420:
10:55-11:35
(2)
Predictive Cases:
Backward-Facing
Step--J.
I
K.
Eaton
Organizing Committee
0 Discussion of Procedures * Specification of Geometries, (3)
Initial
12:00-1:30 Lunch 1:30-3:15 pm, Thursday,
Chairman:
L.
:1
Conditions
Report on flows with Buoyancy Forces--J. Report on Flows with Swirl--A. Morse
SESSION VII
I "
SESSION VI 10:30 -12:00 noon, Thursday, September 4, 1980 Chairman: E. Reshotko Technical Recorders: R. Westphal, D. J. Cockrell
11:35-12:00
i
Wyngaard
September 4,
1980
W. Carr
Technical Recorders:
B. Afshari,
F.
A.
Dvorak
1:30-2:10
(1)
Flow 0360 Flow 0390
Subsonic Axisymmetric Wake--V. C. Patel Boundary Layer with Strong Streamwise and Transverse Curvature--V. C. Patel
2:10-2:25
(2)
Flow 8500:
Spreading Parameter a for Mixing Layer as a Function of Mach Number--P. Bradshaw
2:25-2:45
(3)
Flows 8100 and 820C
.
Cf/
Variations in Cf/Cfo with M and Tw /T 0 •--M. Rubesin/C. Horstman w 2!45-3:15
(4)
Flow 8400 (8401, 8402, 8411) Compressible Boundary Layers Flows--H.
(5)
Case 8403
Compressible
3:15-3:30 SESSION VIII
Chairman: Technical
L.
Lilley
1
Refreshments
3:30-5:00 pm,
J.
Boundary Layer Flow--G.
Feraholz
Thursday,
September 4,
1980
Lumley
Recorders:
S.
Pronchick,
H.
Nagib
3:30-3:50
(1)
Flow 0370:
3:50-4:30
(2)
Flow 0260: Wall Jet--B.
4:30-5:00
(3)
The Control of Accuracy via Uncertainty Analysis -- R. J. Moffat
Sheared Homogeneous Turbulence--J. Launder/W.
H.
Ferziger
Rodi
"xvii -
N .
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
PROGRAM:
1980 MEETING ON DATA
8:30-10:O0
SESSION IX
Chairman: S. Bogdonoff Technical Recorders: P. 8:K0-9:30
(1) (2) (3)
9:30-10:00
Eibeck,
10:00 -10:30 SESSION X
Favre
Coffee & Refreshments
10:30-12:00 noon,
September 5.
Friday,
1980
R. So
Flow 8650: Axisymmetric Shock !-plngement (High Supersonic)--'-. Kubesin/C. Horstman Flow 8660: Three-Dimensional Shock Impingement (Supersonic) -- H. Rubesin/C. Horstman Flow 8600: Impinged Normal Shock Wave, Boundary Layer Interaction at Transonic Speeds -- M. Rubesin/C. Horstman Flow 8690: Non-Lifting, Transonic Airfoil, Shock-Separated -- M. Rubesin/C. Horstman
(1) (2) (3)
(4) 11:30-12:00
Morel
Supersonic Near-Wake Flow--A.
Chairman: J. McCroskey R. Strawn, Technical Recorders: 10:30-11:30
T.
5, 1980
Flow 8610: Transonic Flow over a Bump -- M. Rubesin/C. horatman Flow 8630: Two-Dimensional Compression Corner--C. Horstman Flow 8640: Reattaching Planar Free-Stream Layer (Supersonic)--M. Rubesin/C. Horstman Flw 8680: Axisymmetric,
(4)
September
Friday,
am,
Data Needs for CFD--Discussion of Draft--Participants
(5)
Lunch
12:00 -1:30 SESSION X1
1:30-3:00 pm,
Friday,
Septembeý
P. Bradshaw Chairman: R. Carella, Technical Recorders:
J.
5, 1980
A. C. Humphrey
1-.30-2:10
(1)
Flow 8620: Transonic Airfoils--R.
2:10-2:40
(2)
Flow 8670: Pointed Axisymmetric Bodies at Angle of Attack (Supersonic)--D. Peake
2:40-3:00
(3)
1low 8300: Variation in Cf/C -- L. C. Squire (E. P. Sutton)
with Blowing
Refreshments
3:00-3:30 SESSION XII
Melnik
3:30-5:00 pm,
September 5,
Friday,
P. S. Klebanoff Chairman: M. Lee, Technical Recorders:
J.
1980
Gerrard
3:30-3:50
(1)
Status of Unsteady Boundary Layer Experiments -- An International Review--L. W. Carr
3:50-4:00
(2)
Flow 0350: Ship Wakes--V.
4:00-4:10 4:10-4:30
(3) (4)
4:30-5:00
(5)
Flow 0290 Laminar-Turbulent Transition--E. Reshotko Flow 0470: Flow over the Trailing Edge of Blades and Airfoils--P. Drescher Flow 0280: Relaminarization, Laminarescent and RetransirtR. Sreenivasan ing Boundary Layers--K.
C. Patel
xviii
*
*
*..
i"
PROGRAM:
1980 MEETING ON DATA
SESSION KII
8:30-10:00 am,
Saturday,
Chairman: J. B. Jones Technical Recorders: R. Reports
8:30-10:00
from Ad
September 6,
Westphal,
P.
1.980
Moin
h1oc Committees on Basic Questions;
Revisions of Specifications
Coffee & Refreshments
10:00 -10:30 SESSION XIV
10:30-12:00 noon, Saturday,
Chairman: G. Sovran Technical Recorders:
R.
Jayaraman,
September 6,
1980
G. Lilley
0
Plans for 1981 and Beyond--Organizing Committee
0
Suggestions from Users, Computors, Experimentalists on Work of 1981 Conference and Data for Library (written comments priority). submitted before session will have first
PP1
D.
Peschcke-Koed t
KXix
GENERAL NOMENCLAURE Symbol
ConvenComputer
tional
BETA
0
DEL
6995
DELS
S*
Meaning
(dp/dx)
S.1.
6*/Tw
Boundary-layer
thickness
to 0.995 Ue
Displacement thickness
-
6 6
Energy thickness
-
d
m
U2 pU
6 pUee
Clauser thickness
1.
dy
Pl 2
P" [ PeUe
*
0
CLTH
m
ee
0
ENTH
e
dy
m m
Dissipation function
EPSILON
Units
2
sec
6 THETA
a
Momentum thickness
L e e
0
U
d
m
e
XNU
v
Kinematic viscosity
D2 sec-I
RO
p
Density
kg m3
Shear stress
N m-2
TAU
PHIL
OL
Left-hand side of momentum integral equation balance
PHIR
ýR
Right-hand side of momentum integral equation
balance CD
CD
Drag coefficient
CL
CL
Lift coefficient
CF
Cf
Skin-friction coefficient
CFE
Cf
Cf as reported by originator
CFLT
Cf
Cf according
CFPT
Cf
Measured using Preston tube
C
Pressure coefficient
CP
*
to Ludwieg-Tillmann
formula
p
*".•G
•','
Tw/ 2PeU e. T
6 P U ee 0*PU*
G
Equilibrium shape factor =
""
H
Shape factor **
HS
H*
o
KAY
K
Turbulence kinetic energy (u 2
pU 2 d(y/6)
/0
/0 + V
2
+ w )
-
xx
. .• •. . • . .. • ..
S.`
.. ` .
. .
. .
.``
..
-
" "' ' - .- -- -'
."-
."
I :
Symbol Computer
Conventional
LREF
Lref
)XM
H
XMREF
Mret
P
p
Pressure
PR
Pr
Prandtl number
PREF
Pref
PIUI
p--
QREF
qref
RE
Re
MLaning Reference
S.I.
length
UAts
M
Mach number Reference Mach number N m-2
Reference
-2
pressure
Pressure-velocity Reference
N m covariance N m-2
dynamic pressure
Reynolds number based on reference
values
Re= Uref Lref Vref
-
RDELS
R6 *
Reynolds number - Ue
ROIUl
_PT
Density-velocity covariance
RTRETA
Ru
Reynolds number
ST
St
Stanton number
STR
Str
TENTH
t+
*/v I
Ue
./V
Strouhal number
%
/CT2 Thermal energy thickness
T
St
-T wT T
w 6
XS *X
m
Coordinate normal tc an arc
m
V
V
Mean transverse velocity
W
W
Mean spanwise
UDEF
m sec-
e
UI
Uý
UREF
Velocity external
1
m sec- I m sec-l
velocity
Defect velocity = (UC
bU
m
e
Coordinate tangent to an arc
ean streamwise velocity
SUU
U)/U,
m sec
to boundary layer
m Rec-
-
1
Free-stream velocity
m sec
Uref
Reference velocity
m sec-I
US
U,
Wall shear velocity
UPLUS
U+
U/IJ*
UJ2
U2
Reynolds stress
m2 sec-2
V2
•
Reynolds stress
m2 sec-
W2
w
Reynolds stress
m2
sec
Reynolds shear stress
m2
sec-2
UlVI
272
uv
-
V7,7 w w
xxi
-..
.
.. .
. .
.
.
.
-J
.
m sec-I
2
-2
Symbol Converntional
Computer
Meaning
5.1. Units 2 -2 w 2em
UIWI
uw
-Reynolds shear stress
VIWI
vw
Reynolds shear stress
UnVm
unvm
Higher-order velocity
X
x
Stroamwise coordinate
m
2
covariance
Y
y
Transverse coordinate
PI
Z
z
Spanwlse coordinate
W
X
x or a
Streamwise coordinate on curved surEace
m
Y
y or n
Direction normal to curved surfdce
m
Z
z
Spanwise coordinate
m
yU*/v
y
YPLUS
sec-2
.-
Subscript
I
denotes wall value.
"w"
U20 2
I
e 2)
*
1 x
xU
U
6*
(UeUj'C
o
2
e 2-(U)
d-
-
2
eUo
x0
external to boundary layer.
denotes conditions
Subscript "e"
0
xxii
ii "' i i-.
'.. •
il i i .
i
"
•
. i
'
-
,
" -. .
."
-
. . .-
.- .*
", " .
-
-"
..'
.
.
-
- -i
PICThRlAL ý)UMMARY
The initial version of the pictorial and tabular presentation of
the
all
"Flows"
Professor S. Honami.
used
In the
appear
included.
"Flows
.*
as
They Each
relevant "Case
pre~pared
by
All the major features of the flows
"Speciftcations" are
was
Conference
MI1einitial v.ersion has been modified and
edited for these Proceedings. which
1981
given
individual
here
the
for in the
chal L is
1981
numerical
repeated
Confferencc
are
order of
the
within
rhe
later
.*
IA
S. Honami
A-
G. Lilley
.1
:-j I I U*
.t,
S.
-
j
U
I
-U
*
I
S Ii
J.O
1
I
S.
u-
I
V
.- 52-.
-K0
00
-
--
I.U
01.1
!S,0-.
A
.
I
-
50
I
__
_______
CI
_________
_____
___________
___
I
_________
__ __________
-t __
7i
_______________
________
_______
*1
-.
:1
_______
0.
U
-1
2
I---
-C
K
S
a
*1
__________ -
-
I
S
I
-c
SI
L
U
I I
S
I
I
CN
51 -I
0
0
0
2
K
I
0
I
.I
-J
21
I
65-. U OW
-'
Q
0
I-
L
C
C 0.
S
61 U
xxiv
Li
L___
__
*-
-
-.
-
-
-
iic-
-.
LP
Z1
F. -V
IA.
-
C~cS,.OZC
r~
o
~
.
i
occ
11C
II
I
C
00
00
r
I
*~
-
1..
+'
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
.C2
_
_
_
_
2
ofg. I~~~ 4
** _
0_
-0
0
.
_
_
_
o
I-1
g _
C0* _
_
0
0 0I
I
Ik
01
_
0
11 21
_
-vi
_
_
_
-'
I 1
.0 4 -
-
.-' o0.A .O4I
-
4
.U 4. V.
44
44.-4
4 .0
N -
a
0
-4*u
0
.0
U.. '-0
4.. -
_____4,
-I w
4.444
Uu
,.404, iCC,
0 '44
0 .
-
L4O-4U g0 9*UU
u4
.
00 40 -
-
bo 40 4*
4.64
I
0
U
Ufl
*40
0
.0
II
4
4-
4
A.
____
____________
II! I 4 0
U
44
*4
I
A.
ID 4.'
-
0'
.
44
I,
II
ID -
0
I _______ 4-
44
hi4
I
II
4E
.
S * *
40
'0
4.
4 U I.)
U
I
"'
I
U 0
A.
.
S
Ii
ii
0
-v 0
0
I,
U
I
4.
.
-
(fl
4, C
4
-.4
3
0
*
C Li 44
4 44
4
D
Aol
xxvii
.4 .4
4U44
--
C 0 40 u 44
ID U.%
e
I
14
.2
*4L
Itw
I..U
4.
0
C44v
)
444
.
1;1 404
0
*
~~4,N
4..~I
4
,04-
e
IA
n4 IVC
£u
0
~4-Os)
O
C
~xxi
00
00 I .0
00
00
O0
0u~i
0
5w0
0 913
~0
..
3in
1
re
.3
~
.3
v
1
. 3
4
0L
46
0
4.
0.
a""
t~ i -,
0
,
,4
0u a-
a,
,4
-
r.0-
,
E
..
•,.,0
"
00 I.
0 *0
.
o
.O
-M
-Ia
I
..
. .,
Ii
x
I
* 4. ____~~~~~ _ _
~
_
.. 4'
_
__
_D_1
__
~~~
_
ixxxi
t.
..- ,.. ,..' ,. .,' ... .. , ...' ., _.-. -, "
_
----
... ..... ....... ... . -...
'
2-.z'
". , . . , , , . . .
_
_
_
_
_
I
I N
c
&
Ii I l
0
I
U u
o
0
U
,
i
S
1.1
I :
-.
.
_
._
. .•"
x
-x
-
"-
I
--
___-___-1__I
. ._'
,
A .
,,m,.
Q -1
I.•.:
-________ Tti
I-I
-
-
4
-
*,
'V
u
0
0
00
0
09~0-
4
4,
C u~~~1 4, qa~
4
00
beU. CA__
4
U P
~
__ _____
v VV _____ I
.- V~
a
'-~VI __
.0+
ul
v
ioC)
____________i
i
.~
V,
g_- __
:It
I Ul
x
go
0 ______~ A
~-
w,,
,.-*
,
4,
.u
C9
____
'40V
*
4,
v
,
i
I r
t~
.-
41
1
4
w-
4
-
0,
,_____
ag~i~
,
u.)I
_______X
a,4
-
vz
Ia,~.o.U
ha
I.od
h
Ii
I.
* 1i
LI
-
~40. I I
I5
.;
.
'-a
(
-~T
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
a..
0
t, "0~
2
TO
0
LT
r-.
o a
-r
0-
~
o0
Q-.
~
Az-
z)
C
~q ~
g5
,-
~-
U
~
0
72~
4C
g
.
*U
DC ..
~~
a
.
I
I1 -
*1 .1
*1 01..
4 4
n4
4
4
0 z
4
'-'0 0lJ
I.. 1..
f I:
K:
.1
2
p;
________
______ _________ ________________________ ______________________________________
00
-
I-
I
4-
.,
0
I..
K
I -
U
j
__
.J .
.
.
1..
______ ____II
C
13
0'
Ci N.
b _________
14
I;
30 U
C-, *0
___________ __________
I
I0I
I,
N
-
I
0!
L
.ouI .
I
. 44
_________
I ___
A
0 4
II
II
.2
___
V
.
I..
.0
0
,
I
I ____________
1.2
I
.
I 1...
.9 0
I
I
I
'
Ci
0 -'
C
3
ci 4.
4 -C,
*4 4o
40
o 0 ________________ __________
_____________ ________
I
A
II
-j
Ii
II'>
41-. N -
o
_________________ U
I
CC 114
04
________________ __________
3 ofI
II
a
.C
IIio
C'
'1 XXXf
4 -
-
C.......................
.0
c
414
vA k.
0
0
-0 .0
bJO
0
C~
*
~
0
-
C'C
I
V
4.00
~'O'*
-to,
*daea
-
I-)a9.SO
4.
*
a
.0O u.1 U
*
F-.
w
U
a.
I0
I.-
ai
I
II
V
I-oil_________
Iico
.0
u
-
IV
LI
~
_
.0~
j
Oi
00
I
S.
.
.
.
.
"I
..
iI
a, u
v
-Q"-
TU
I-.
r
I
0 .C
0, 0
lu
.
,- -. -. -. .
I-xx
".-
-
S.
"-
."
"
" ;
vit
-2, "i 'i
i
"'"
.
.
.
2- i
•I"i"
4- 0.
." .
" - .."
I
•.
I
.
xxvi i
"
.0
-
4
t.
Cc
11 -0
0. 0
U
L
.Wr
a).
t~~
v.
0/
~
-
I
~
cc
~iC6
A.)
U
0
.
I
C
IV
____
-1
0>
o u~
*0
X-C
10
ao
no >
x ,i
a
06
00
u.
"0 I
0
0
00,
-
S0
Sb,
..
I
1i
'I
1 0
X1•
-'
"" U-,I"
"."
1l
.-.
'
-*l .:C
10
o
c 4113 00
.
t
C-0
C
41
0
a
31
4,,4
w,
r,4,
.0~~~
0
4
,
4,>
4,
1
4,
21?1
L,.
0.6.
~ 0.
4,4
-
__
_
1-
_
a_
_
_
a
Um00
_
-
4,C;-
0
_
#jI4,
I0
0.
'nI a. 'a
a~tm
~CA -
_
I
611
I
-
U
. q
voo
C0
C
u0
uV
•
Cu.
C
4)
,,,0
OI
0
3"'
..
o
-
.
"Co .
-
-I
)'-.
'
3" '-'
0~
'
10
n
C]
C .'
"
-
o
xli-li--0
go
=
I)
-°.
-
3
, .
O
-,C
3 .I
43
i, 3.
°.' '
.
~iii
-
% ... .
,
,
0
it
c~I
-
'
I'
Q
Kli
e
TI VI
INTRODUCTION
S.
J.
Kline
GOALS OF THE CONFERENCE
I.
The Conference has three related goals: 1.
To
consensus
reach
in
data
on trustworthy
for modeling of turbulence
for standard
and as the basis tions.-
community
the research
that can be used as input
in complex
for checking output of
"trials"
sets
flows
computa-
2.
This library will The creation of a "data library" on magnetic tape. The hold the data selected as trustworthy in standard normalized form. data will be computer-readable and widely accessible at a moderate fee.
3.
Comparison of the lent flows for it
output
flows. The first
that
is
the
intended
of
current methods
result
of
the
effort
of
to
for
continue
at
for
computation
turbu-
covering a broad range of
least
some
years.
The
,
during 1979-80
nearly 200 workers
The second objective is
the 1980 meeting of the Conference.
in
culminating project
is
objective
of
set of "basic test cases"
an ongoing
third
objective
will be the focus of the 1981 meeting of the Conference.
term seems year
It
to be available.
research
effort
by
somewhat misleading for
is
The word "conference"
a
in
state-of-the-art
more accurate
to think of the project as a several-
fraction
considerable
establishing a more solid data the
is
of
the
Such
community
research
the situation
base and clarifying both
computation.
albeit no better
this project,
should
a clarification
be of
both users of computatational methods and to the research community in
It
is
my privilege to coordinate these efforts as Chairman
has been
ing ComL.ittee. to
share
The experience some
of
that
dealing with
the Conference
begin with a
brief
culties
in
The
and the
history.
turbuLence
sponsorship
research
of
the
This
with
the
readers
Data Library.
It
assistance
to
perceiving more
of the
Organiz-
will
and
subsequent
perhaps
volumes
be most useful
to
followed by a discussion of some current diffi-
is
S.
this
of
The third and
and fluids engineering.
U.
data and
The purpose of this introduction
has been educational.
education
at
roads to further advances.
and profitable
clearly what can now be done,
in the
aimed
Air Force
of
Office
Scientific
final Lopic is
Research
a
under
Contract F49620-80-C-0027 and the Industrial Affiliates of the Stanford Thermosciences Suggestions by Gino Sovran, Brian Launder, Peter Division is gratefully acknowledged. Bradshaw, Jim Johnston, Brian Cantwell, Geoffrey Lilley, and John Eaton on an earlier draft led to significant improvements and are also gratefully acknowledged.
1
..
v.° ° . - -.' ° •"
.- .- -° - - .
. - ° •- ". • -*".'
-.
--
-.
.-; - ; '.
.
' • .,
-" . "- -. ; - " . -. " -" - i
- •
, - - - •"" '
description of the Conference and how it
plans to ameliorate some of the difficulties
described.
I1. A BRIEF HISTORY From the early years of this century until the late 1960a the problem of computing the averaged
flow properties
unsolved problem.
of
turbulent shear
layers was considered a classic
With the advent of wide accessiblity
to digital computers a number
of individuals began to construct codes for solution of shear-layer problems. late 1960a, were
25 methods had been generated,
trustworthy.
construct
but there was no consensus thet any of themt
This lack of consensus was evidenced
new methods,
and by
the
By the
by the continued
funding of such efforts by governments
efforts in
to
-
several
countries. In
order
to clarify
Coles, M. V. Morkovin,
this situation,
W. C, Reynolds,
of holding a meeting at which as
a number of
many methods as possible
carefully standardized and trustworthy data. task of standardizing the data. Cockrell
and many
others,
research groups.
individuals,
G. Sovran and the writer,
D. E.
Coles,
includi.ig
organized
would be
tested against
with E. Hirst,
are described by Kline et a].
the
meeting
and
coordinated
efforts
in the two-volume Proceedings
and involved
some unique
among the of the 1968
that
from the perspective of this
Before the 1968 Conference,
that no satisfactory method existed. in
the general belief was
The excellent report of the Evaluatior Commit-
the 1968 Conference showed that seven methods were quite 3atisfactor.,
well-defined
limits,
and that nine mo-e had useful properties
Another nine were deemed inadequate, direct
features
is that the result radically altered the common wisdom concerning the ability
to compute turbulent shear layers.
tee
organizaLional
The con-
(1969).
The most significant result of the 1968 conference, volume,
.
a3sumed the
AFOSR-IFP-Stanford Conference on Computation of Turbulent Boundary Layers. structured
E.
The remainder of the group with assistance from D. J.
The results az.! recorded
ference was highly
D.
conceived of the idea
result
attached,
of
the 196.8
incompressible,
for some applications.
and have been for the most part abandoned.
Conferenze, turLulent
within
the
bulk of work
boundary layers ceased,
on developing
As a
prc[rams
and the researca
for
commu.i-
ity moved on to more complex problems.
*'
VI Available for purchase from the Thermosciencet Divisio'n of tht Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA. Price for both volumes, including mailing, $17.50. 'Chaired by H. W. Emmons; see 1968 Proceedings for detail. 2
S_.
I'-
Within
ences
a
years
following
1968,
r-asonable
free-shear
layers,
zone of wakes, The
"wrent.
had also
shown
that
methods
"trials"
the
emuloyed
bhown
in
in
"law"
modeling
The
compuLatinijl
resultIng
.
app're:iable
'
again find ourselves
zones
what
of
1968.
probleMr
they 1976,
1968 Conference
all
the
indicating
input in
far zones
for
the
near
will
in
again
began
result,
tnat of
or
Kim et al.
the type of correla-
successful methods in
the
1968
on data corre-
methods
and turbu-
many research centers arovnd
tle world.
at improving numerical
in
other
succeed
the prediction of a
turbulence-closure modeling.
flow fields, and
for
regions of detach-
in
follow
the "pustdiction" of
comalexities.
which
By
exist,
methods
the
late
3ut there
have
is
19703,
needed to
we
no consen-
advantages
for
we have been literally
a number of workers
to discuss what
thin sGhar
some cases involving unsteadiness,
the words of the old cliche,
As a
in
succesGful
a heavy dependence
have moved beyond
flow,
were
particularly
situatlon where miny methods
fused on a tigher level." the
methods
of entire
a
methods
Layer doeL. noý
Moreove:,
the wall,
separated in
Since about
experiments,
reattached
of
available
hag been carried out in
.layers to the compotation
flows.
confer-
These conferences
and simulation
required ad-hoc. "fixes"
a considerable effort
1970s
the
lence-closure
3n
similar
layers and the
1968 failed, qualitatively,
lation and hence a lack of fundamental
sus
layers.
boundary
of both data
that
Subsequent
such a
tion used by most
Durint
for free-shear
lack
failed or
but generally
free-shear-layer.
have
a
organized
1o"2)
for compressible
indicated
the methods presented
reattached (1979),
but
Conference
zones,
All
simulation
(1969,
jets and mixing layers.
1968
attached
r
NASA
for compressible boundary layers and
demonstrated of
few
what "con-
who had been ir.volved be done.
The 1980-81
in
Con-
ference grew from those discussione. Becauae plete
flow
tachment,
the lqBC-81 fields
strong wall-curvature far
larger
tions for -
of
than
tional.
such
in
concerns
complications
of
shear
layers,
and
other
phenomena,
1968.
the structure
sose current
Conference
with
reattachment
L
In
order
to
as
in
One other historical
shock/boundary-layer
large
zones
the
task
understand
of the Conference,
difficulties
"Complex Turbulent Flows,"
it
turbulent
remark is
of
at
these tasks,
will be useful
flow research,
in
once
de-
blowing/suction,
far more
complex and
and hence
the motiva-
to give
both
com-
interactions,
"eparation,
is
that iz,
a brief overview
technical and
order before discussion of
institu-
these difficul-
ties. Preparatory shown
that
an
examination.
work
for
important At
the
Particularly, writer.
the
element
beginning
M. V.
1980-81 of of
Conference
the
common
the work,
Lorkovin,
P.
during
wisdom
every
Bradshaw,
1979
and
does not
member of
1980
stand
up
-.-
*'.
'.
%
%'
.
.
H. W. Emmons,
.
.
already
to
detailed
the Organizing
W. C. Reynolds,
3
_.=...............
has
.
.
.
.
Committee
and the
was concerned with to
type
form a
The Committee
basis
for a
believed
that
than
50 cases
were
circulated
This
for
descriptions
continue
inputs
into the
.
cases"
for
signed
primarily so that
1981
cases and
15 such sets of data could be identi-
various
more
that many more exist but have
parts
of
the world
still
volunteered
continuing. Panc
data
iLts,
onto
who
magnetic
is
the
but has also overloaded
tape file.
J. Cantwell
tape
As a result,
it
is
the data
supervising
and
checking,
fitite
providing
the intention
library work,
library after 1981 until the backlog of existing data is this work
In
stantially
flow
B.
"caught up".
*
the
in
for each magnetic
and Prof.
writer,
flows?"
turbulent
ac the work progressed and evaluation reoo:cts
still
the
on complex
and something like
workers
entering
type
data sets of the necded
As data evaluations have accumulated,
of data has obvious
for
1968
10 or
Moreover,
that process is
available
che needed the
review,
disclosure
manpower
.
the
as many as
have been identified,
further data sets;
.
if
been fully evaluated.
not yet
of
of
conference
a meeting would be vell worthwhile.
fied,
of
"Are there enough trustworthy
the question,
meeting
(see
kifter
below).
the data compilation
secondarily
on
a
has gone
priority
to recording
September
sub-
"basic test:
the
priorities
were
as-
tape provided a balanced set
on magnetic
first-come,
1980
to
basis.
first-served
Further details
the section on Organization of the Conference below.
appear in
SOME DIFFICULTIES IN TURBULENT FLOW RESEARCH
III.
Technical Difficulties
A.
i. Te coplexity and variety offlw"•! Thin stricts
In
or condition
This
.
do,
affect
is
in
in
instances;
some
the
author
given
has
by a few
implicitly
World War
the
by a
list
list
Such a
of list
II, it
,
at
is a
no
guarantee
technical
the
meeting
one rethe
substance,
quite diverse and far from
As
as
a
single
state
data from hot wires
became clear
turbu'cnce
that
affected by many parameters.
that is the
Even when
Newtonian
simple models.
things
that
can,
and sometimes
collected over some
All the effects of Table there
however,
pure
turbulence was
turbulence. 1.
flows.
considered
demonstrated
Table
read
single,
of
is
largely after
the behavior of
is
a
but a complex of behaviors
well
author,
of
class
flow fields known to exist
(hopefully)
available,
complexity
flow
one-phase
research,
not a single state,
*
-
to
describable
became widely is
early
cohesive
form a relatively
of complex turbulent
cohesive. *
layers
consideration
totality
.
shear
time by the
I are known to be appreciable list
is
someone
complete. has
(Every
commented
time
on still
item--at least thus far.)
another
denotes a class of situations usually related In this volume a "flow" A "case" is one experimental realization of a flow, or a synthesis geometries. for computations. realizations, amalgamated into a single "trial"
4
.
...
°.
to of
The
complexity
of
'urbulent
problems or classes of tho, 1980-81 zation of entirely
This list
problems
complete.
fields
is
also exhibited
flows that have been considered by
Conierence.
flow
flow
foe
They
is
the have
been
These
reorganized
the
variety
of
the Organizing Committee for
exhibited as Table 2,
Conference.
by
which
categories
several
shows
the categort-
are neither unique
times
and
updated
as
nor more
information appeared. Still
a
third
indication
of
the complexity
of
turbulent
flow
fieldr. iL% given
by
the variety of levels of modeling that are currently employed for simulationI of turbulent
flows
number of
Since
both
globally
~ent
computer
models.
One is
Most current modeling
Table 3. a
in
subcategories the mean
taxonomy
of moduling
of
is
at
the
turbulence
four combinations
level
by
Kline this
three in
et
al.
(1978)
is given in Level 3 contains
ta>.onomy.
of models from simple mean strain to "many-equation"
flow and
(uniformly),
taxonomy lcvel
3 models
not confined
is
he modeled
locally
(zone
by zone)
of global and local modeling exist.
given
to level
can
3;
by
Reyn(lds
appreclable
(1968).
current
models.
However,
An excel-
the
efforts exist
or
totality
at all
five
levels for some problems. A
fourth
Bradihaw
:axonomy
(1975).
lence clo',ure
it
is
in
Tab'e
we are
i:
kinds of
claim
too
2. nct
juch
too
1980,
discussed. of
Table
model case,
1
2,
nor
various
It
situation. 2.
and
the
in
to the
several type of
papers
by
strainb
Prof.
Table
needed
model
the
Bradshaw's 1 shows
information.
group,
that
models
some are via
have to be able
for the computer simulation
I provides a warning for
disservice
and
A
categorization
that we shall ultimately
Table do
give
to the
of
those who would
insightful
and continuing
research community as a whole.
lackad a viable method for relating the several taxonomies
kinds
of
strains
whac
have what is
level
and
of
computation
effects
needed
hoped that the 1981
accurately.
for engi'ineering
of
roblasm--accuracy
turbulence
is
will As
ultimately long as
work in
be
just
that
needed
remains
complex turbulent
meeting of the Conference will begin to clarify
discussion on this point appears in
The measu.rewent
some
of
effects
flows.
know
More
provided by
thereby
we
is
according
that will
-re have adequate
do
.Mcasurement to measure
that
suggested
not knowz what methods are best applied to a given flow configuration
we shall not
fields. •.
we still
We do
all
been
flows
examination
turbulent early
has
tdea for organizing model assumptions for turbu-
have bee.
include
eFfo.ts of the turbulence In
arranges
experiments
However,
to say
complex
flows
a very fruitful
and suggesting
strain type. does to model
turbulent
taxonomy
of such experJ.ments
included
all
of
This
flow undergoes;
number
-
the floa the
the final section.
control
inherently
imporLant quantities,
to
difficuit.
We
for example vorticity,
have
lacked
instruments
pressure fluctuations,
5
Lt1
i2.
" . .
.
."'''
'""""
" '"'
•
pressure-strain correlation, the Reynolds stress tensor. bodies and in
instruments,
the
Tutu and Chevray,
uncertainty
dissipation
of
have
adequate
and
paper
below
nearly
turbulent
1976).
Kline,
by
every
flow reversals,
and
some components
data
X/D
0
CL
-4
m to V4).-C. W
o4t
4)o$ X
u
4)
~ ~ ~ 0-4 ~ ~ ,-.~ i
-40
zJ
1-
jr.
0
~
(0W r_4 V4rJO >U
) Q)'0 (A
w
0C
-
>% m oý
0CO
*.-IA-J4) Q. $.4)4) 824)> 4 0 04)0 . 4-40 U 04)
;x30 o--
W
o
0
x
E-
(L)
0 4
W,4 M W
()4'U
&U.4
> r-)'. CU 0 0
44) cc0C .j 0. c u x>1 0 k'.-4 Q NC 90
W )
ý6 1
1
4-.4W
I
CO 4)-4 0 t0
.d
4
-
10
4.4
Q~0)4-
M(c0o Er C _
r. 0 0 -4
--
4)Z
0
r-
0 N
-
U.
6
21-0 n 0-4. z4.s~
a
C0)
nC.
-4-4,
cU
w-. " (4.-
-3
4I.-4c
H0 0 0.4
.
U
-4(.cc U -4 1-CO W
~
U cc
4; W))(4-4-4 '0 EC)) 0OxO 0 0
01 4)
00 r-
(
0C .. 4 u
)
r)
>,J-
0Co(44 >1' 0-4 C
20
-..
004 0
.4
)
EC tv z0'4. q)-'
)0W 4)*-
>.-.
.
-4 * X
41
(a
.
))-
> 40 o.
C44
04r=) 4"
-4 S. w r0
404 A-
0
-
404)
04)
)
~
N>4
!
4U-
4-
0io
U
-( Cd
L. OJ
Co
F? 14( to
0044.
2(
cc
j -4
w
0
w 4.
I...
C.~
.Uý w4
J 04 1-044 0 0.4.
,0
lt.)
cu
>
04CUL
t4 4)
0
r
4)0
(
0
OCN
u
l)w
ý4).
CO
r_ &
u
go0fUI
00J 0-
wQ
0
00.-4.-4 0C: w-1- V ý 4C%-4Com .044 >1 =0 U -U a- 0 M2C a =.4.-' C0 u z I 0 co. 0V 0 o An S-0 0 aI Co
C
0)
>0)CO4.)Q
~
.. go
4)044
.0
.W J
~
-04
C'-0
")
0
:10 o
.
(
4j0.w 0 0- f
. C0)"e4)
1V
4
I
Z-B A.,
q;
0~ 00C
u.
cc Uo)o1-
(0 ýl(U4
4
0-
-1
44
;-N .4. c0
*j
be 0) 4)0
ý
1CUL
CU4 44
4 "a.
V
4)
u Co4 .. C 000
0
C
0-
0
CL
10
3 7
0d0 W~ ( pa
U) 14
) 4SAj
c
E 090
O~
4w
0- u4 0 )4~4
4)
-4
4~~a
4
ýj
*),
0
-~4-.
.4
0-c CO
-.
&j4
Z
J
O
di
I REFERENCES Bradshaw,
P.,
(1975).
Coles,
E.,
and E.
D.
"Complex Turbulent A.
Hirst,
(1969).
Flows,
JFE,
97,
p.
146.
"Proceedings Computation of Turbulent Boundary
Layers--1968 AFOSR-IFP-StaLlford Conference," Vol. 11. Coles, D. E., B. J. Cantwell, and A. J. Wadcock, Related Instrumentation," NASA-CR 3066.
Coampiled Data.
A1978).
"The
Flying
Hot Wire and
*
Dean,
*
Eaton, J. K., and J. P. Johnston, (1980). "A Review of Research on Subsonic Turbulent Flow Reattachment," AIAA (Preprint) 80-1438. Kim,
R.
C.,
Jr.,
(ed.),
1952.
Aerodynamics Heasurement,
MIT Press,
(out
of print).
J., S. J. Kline, and J. P. Johnston, (1979). "Investigation of a Reattaching Turbulent Shear Layer: Flow over a B&ckward-Faclng Step," ASME Symposium on Flow in Primary Non-Rotating Passages in Turbomachines.
Kline, S. J., M. V. Morkovin, C. Sovran, and D. J. Cockrell, (1969). Computation of Turbulent Boundary Layers--1968 AFOSR-IFP-Stanford Vol. I., Methods, Predictions, Evaluations and Flow Structure. Kline,
S.
J.,
M. V.
"Proceedings Conference,"
Morkovin, and H. K. Moffat, (1969). "Report on the 1968 AFOSRon Computat'.on of Turbulent Boundary Layers," JFM 36, pp.
"IFF-Stanford Conference
481-484. Kline, S. J., J. H. Ferziger, of Turbulent Shear Flows:
"NASA,
(1969).
"Compressible Turbulent Boundary Layers,"
NASA, 31972). 321. Owen,
Vol. Tutu,
-'"
Free
Turbulent
F. K., and D. Source of Error,
"Reynolds, "1968
and J. P. Johnston, (1978). Status and Ten-Year Catlook,"
Shear
Flows,
Vol.
5.
Opinion: JFE 1 0_0
"The Calculation 1, pp. 3-5.
n,
NASA-SP-216.
Conference
Proceedings,
A. Johnson, (198C). "Separated Skin Friction an Assessment and Elimination," AIAA-80-1409.
NASA SP-
Measurement
--
W. C., (1968). "A Morphology of Predictio-i Methods," Proceedings of the AFOSR-IFP-Stanford Conference on Computation of Turbulent Boundary Layers, I, pp. 1-15.
N., and R. lence," JFM,
Chevray, (1975). 71, pp. 785-800.
"Cross-Wire
Anemometry
in
High Intensity
Turbu-
P.
Westphal, R. V., J. K. Eaton, and J. P. Johnston, (19,40). "A New Probe for Measurement of Velocity and Wall Shear Stress in Unsteady, Reversing Flow," 1980 Winter Annual Meeting, ASME Symposium Proc., "Measurement aid Heat Transfer Processes in Recirculating Flows," HTD-13. Young, M. F., and S. J. Kline, (1976). "Calibration of Hut Wires and Hot Films for Velocity Fluctuations," Report TMC-3, Dept. of Mecbai.ical Engineering, Stanford University.
"Ziman,
J.,
(1968).
Public
Knowledge:
The
Social
Dimensions
of
Science,
Cambridge
University Press.
21
IL-
Appendix THE OPERATION OF SESSIONS--THE ROLE OF EVALUATORS, SESSION CHAIRMEN 1980 Meeting on Data TECHNICAL RECORDERS: , P-0AND Goals of Sessions: 1. Reach consensus on flows within the Basic Test Cases and many other flows as time and available evaluations allow. 2.
Complete di-cusaions by the end of the Meeting.
Each flow case will be presented asked to cover the following points: (i) (ii)
(iv)
by the Data Evaluator.
The Evaluator will be
Selection criteria Flows selected (zones
(iii) Specific computations flow L
as
Advices for checks, etc.
future
data
and output) Dpta
Lakers:
for each selected needs,
cautions,
A number of attendees, in addition to the review commlttee, will kI-ve ueen asked These comments when offered will take to study each evaluation and prepare comments. 1reay', beet, taken into (Review Committee comments will have prierity in discussions. account by the Data Evaluators.) Each session will be aboLt 90 minutes in All seasions will be recorded on tape. flows. Recorders" to assist the Chairman.
]ength and will typi.ally cover three Each sessior will have t-,o "Technical
In the evening following a given session, a committee on that session will Normally this convene to complete the discussion and clarify points under question. commictee w'll in'iude the Seasion Chairman, Evaluator, Review Committee Chairman, The task of this committee will be to produce Techr.i42. Recorders, and a few others. a succinct, clear record of the significant points of the session--in general, this will nct be a verbatim transcript. The -. es w1.1 not be t~a,-scribed; t-is is an enormous but seldom valuable task. Rather, the operators of the tape -,Achines will be instructed to create a footage log showing where various personb speAk in order to Frovide Access for checking remaeks where needed Given these resourceG, the Chairman's task will be to moderate the discussion and reduced to writing by the poiiitu are completed and accu:ately be suie that Recorders. 7t is nearly always important in this 2rocess to keep asking questions of the persons expressing positions until full clarity is reached, and then have the recorder rea4 b3zk the statement for concurrence by the worker concerned; the process As noted above in this packet, consennus as uqed should be iterated to closure. herein implies not only agreements, but also sharply focused disagreements wiLh the The iterative proceps name(s) of each individual holding a given position sLated. Juvt mentioned is particularly important in registering and focusing disagreements about specific idieas or mattcrs of fact. The Conference will provide sufficieht secreLarial assistance s, that the typed version of the output from the committee on each session canL be produced and posted by Inidviduals will be asked to approve (by the end of lunch on the following day. initialling) or alternatively comment in wriEl-ng to the Session Chairman by the evenit.g of thac day. 22
S:-
::::"::
:
! :::.i ) :
: : :-
: .-
.
-
FLUID
EXPERIMENTAL DATA NEEDS FOR COMPUTATIONAL DYNAMICS--A POSITION PAPER*
P.
Bradshaw,
B. J. Cantiell, J. H. Ferziger, and S. with Commen-s on Compressible Flows by M. RubeBin and C. Horstman
J.
Kline,
Joel Ferziger Peter Bradshaw 1.
INIRODUCTION This
position
tion
of
the
This
interaction
paper
interaction is
is
intended to provide
between
central
experimental
to
the
both experimental and computational appears
to have
separately. number cated 2.
of
been
neglected
Fbr this attendees
to its
reason,
prior
For the experiments drawn
the
Conference
recent of
computational to
effective
At the same time,
past,
this
and
compared
of the
Conference,
dynamics.
progress
in
The interaction
to efforts
paper was distributed
1980 meeting
fluid
delinea-
in
each area
[or comment
and
time was
to a allo-
discussion during the meeting.
BACKGROUND--NEEDS pasL
IN GENZRAL
decade
a
brisk
and computation likely roles
the
on
and
fluid dynamics.
in
the
data
present
a draft
to
a starting point for cleaver
in
discussion,
has
fluid dynamics.
on
the ultimate
roles of
Certain general conclusions can now be
data
experimental
of
continued
re-
the
least
for at
computation
and
mainder of the century. There ments
seems
will
"third
to be little
exist.
force"
in
question
CA-mputation
has
fluid mf, ,,inics,
that
a role
becoie,
and
for
both computations and experi-
will
strongly eugmenting
doubtless
remain,
the older methods
a
powerful
of experiment
and analytical mathematics. in
On the other hand, even optimistic estimates of the growth in size and reduction cost/flopt of large digital computers make it unlikely that the complete governing
differential will
be solved
numbers bulent least
equations of viscous
in
in
flows at four
feasible
this century.
hardware;
(ii)
turbulent
flows;
Commucrts acknowledged.
machine
as
on
(i) as
input (iii)
an
.Floatin.-point
undamaged by any kind of averaging
times for complex turbulent
Sire engineering applications
high Reynolds
purposes:
flow,
for for
numbers,
experimental
an engineering "'modeling" of
checking
earlier
ari~hmetir
draft
tool
approximate
the output
by
C.
of
Sovran
operation.
"23
flows at high
the
still
methods
B.
bE needed
development for
computations:
and
Reynolds
isually involve complex
data will
for
procedure,
E.
and
Launder
(iv)
are
for at
testing
computing
and
tur-
to
of
complex increase
gratefully
--
understandinS
the remarks of the para-
To be correctly perceived,
of fluid motions.
graph need to be carefully qualified. There is
no longer doubt that some important
time-dependent
computations
cannot be obtained This is
as large-eddy
from experiments--at
simulations)
for turbulent flows that
least with the instruments available in 1980.
already evident in such examples as compuptitonn of: the pressure-strain cor-
relation;
new,
important details of instability in laminar-turbulent
the linear range; 1980,
(such
results can be obtained from fully
important
transition beyond
and the dynamics of turbulence production near qolid boundaries. results of such types are still
to cee many more of them in
relatively new;
In
one expecto
however,
the next decade.
(See also final paragraph of this sec-
these important advances,
one must at the same time be conscious
tion.) In recognizing
of the limitations of machine size and cost.
In particular,
costs
types
make
it
feasible
to
run
the
largest
of
the present and projected
programs
only when
scientific results can be obtained once and for all, or where economics, tions,
or performance
corporate
or goverr-ental
costs per (megs)flop will remain rare, and (ii)
demands,
make
the problem of overriding
institution.t
suggest
restricted
that:
of
(i) machines capable
to very large institutions
legal condi-
importance
to a large
larger machines and reduced of
this kind of computation
owing to
large first costs;
the costs per run will remain so large that the most powerful approaches are"
unlikely to become the methods of most
N.
Projections
important
day-to-day engine2ring computation within the
twentieth century.
"The lows.
remarks
to this point suggest
two foundations
First, a need for approximate (specifically,
for the discussion
time-averaged) methods of computa-
tion of turbulent flows at high Reynolds numbers will continue
S
that fol-
to exist.
It
follows
that we will continue to need a data base to build simulation models and to substantiate approximations.
however,
The nature of the required data base is,
strongly af-
fected by the specific needs of computation--both for forming models and for checking
Soutput
for central
*
various
question
of
classes this
of flows.
paper,
The requirements
and for
the conference
for
this
data base forms a
as a whole.
Second,
it
L
is
For example, large-eddy simulations or models employing transport equations foi" Reynolds stresses in closure approximations. tFor example, computation of flow in piston engines relatin.g to creation of pollutants, the design of critical elemento of turbomachinery affecting aircraft performance.
.. *
*D. R. %V
Chapman (1980,
and personal communication)
suggests
that design of
some
critical turbaaachinery elements by these methods may occur within the 1990s owing to: (i) low Reynolds numbers in some cases; (ii) relatively simple geometries; and (iii) high cost and difficulty ot adequate performance testing. 24
- --- - - - - - -
AI
already
evident
that computations can both supplement and aid in interacting experi-
mental results. computations
There is
accordingly
an inverse question:
that will aid design of experiments,
advise on the nature of useful experiments?"
"What
can be learned from
supplement experimental data and/or
Some applications of large-eddy simula-
tion to results not obtainable by experiment have
;lready been suggested.
The adap-
tive-wall wind-tunnel is an example of the use of computation to aid experiment; tunnels are particularly
important
for cransonic flows and for some classes of complex
flowis (for example separated flows)
at all Macb numbers. Two instructive,
impnrtant aid to understanding data. cations
such
have kindly been supplied by F.
Computation can often be an recent examples ot such appl 4 -
A. Dvorak of Analytical Methods
Incorporr
and are attached as Appendix 1. These examples of the importance of data to good numerical computation to improvements of experimente arficient,
however,
by P3 means exhaustive.
They are sut-
to illustrate forcibly the import;mce of using experiment Rnd corp--
taLion to augment each other iteratively, and improve engineeting design methods.
as the effective way to increase knowlcdge We make this remark specifically to emphasize
"that while
the focus in this paper is on data needs,
preference
for experiment
prosper bese
fluid dynamic3 and of
alone,
or for
computation.
the intention there is
On
there ip no intention to imply a the contrary,
since neither will
to help clarify means for effective inter-
action between experiment and computation. 3.
SPECIFIC NEEDS IN `XPERIMENTATiON In
order
to
specitic needs
consider
types of experimentG,
clearly,
it
i.
helpful
to
consider
a.
Data on quantities of direct importance for engineering design.
b.
Data that will be useful in either construction or checking models for practical simulation of complex turbulent flows at high Reynolds number.
c.
Information that improves understanding of underlying physics of fluid motions.
This
"needed
paper
is
primarily
for category
categories (a)
(b)
devoted
to
the
discussion
has some characteristics
complete enough to specify a test case.
category
(b).
that differ markedly
The
data
from those of
is the need for initial and/or boundary data In many computational methods,
velocity data but also Reynolds stresses (and
mind,
that
is,
to
choose
at
not only mean
perhaps triple-products and dissipation
rate) reed to be specified over the initial surface. in
of
or (c).
The first distinctive characteristic
with this
three
depending on the results desired.
least
Experimenters one
possible
need to take data
"initiating surface"
25 S....
..
..
.
..
.
..
.
:. ....... .- ........-.. _.
.
..
.
..
-. ,,....
•......
-.....
..--.
... :
,.....•
.:..-.:".
..
:
-..
''
"2..
% and document
the
flow
at
that
surface
with
as
much
thoroughness
as
is
feasible.
Presumably the 1981 portion of this conference will make the precise needs clearer by providin:, a "catalog" of
what
inputs are needed
for various successful
computation
methods. A word of caution concerning the measurements of flow both at the initial surface and elsewhere is needed. A well-documented experiment needs to record not ouly the mean flow and fluctuation quantities but also the presence or absence of such phenomena as:
ing)
(i)
vortex
steadiness; ically;
gross unsteadiness;
structures; (v)
(iv)
(ii)
the
vortex shedding;
presence
(or
(iii)
absence)
any other
"unexpected"
(or
of shock patterns
the existence of more than one flow pattern
and (vi)
stationary
flow behavior in
meander-
and their
periodically or aperiod-
the situation under study.
This implies the use of flow visualization and/or unaveraged and un-Fourier-analyzed, conditionally sampled rake data. Phenomena of this sort way not be part of the "turbulence field," but may nevertheless affect it to first order.* Moreover such information is essential to identify zones where particularly accurate time calculations or spatial
resolution are
necessary
in
the computations
evolution of the dynamics of the flow field. is
to distinguish gross
understanding,
if
one is
to obtain a correc'"
The information is also essential if
unsteadiness from turbulernce,
one
and thereby obtain appropriate
or to sort data from one flow mode from that of another (see Appendix 1
for example).
Geoffrey Lilley has made a similar point in a different way. earlier draft of this paper,
In commenting on an
Lilley noted that turbulence production can be written as
an integral of quantitis of the form q x w, where q
is
the fluctuating velocity and
w the fluctuating vortieity vector. It follows that one must document the components of velocity and their derivatives not only in the direction nnrmal to the surface choacn for initiating computations but also the velocity components and their derivatives lying in the initiatIng surface unlces the flow at the initiating surface
is
clearly
known to be wholly irrotational. The second characteristic profile well.
measurements Third-order
of
the
of experimetital dats for category mean
correlations
flow
and,
are useful
surements of dissipation are aseful,
if
possible,
but generally
(b)
is
turbulence have lower
the need foe quantities
priority.
as
Mea-
but seldom can be made accurate enough for use in
comp,'tations. The that
nature of
the question
"simple"
fluid measurements of experimental
geometries
of
the
most
and the subtleties
of fluid motions are
uncertainlty must have a prominent role. common
sort,
the
data
scatter
among
such
Even in various
Emphasis on this point and most of the language of this paragraph were kindly supplied by Dennis Bushnell of NASA-Langley Research Center. 26
"L _"j
generally larger than most workers wouii.
experiments is report
by
reason,
J.
B.
Jones
on
the
entry
region
of
a separate discussion on the analysis
paper by R. J.
a
expezt.
round
tuLe
of uncertainty
in
and to the
An example tion
for
this
on wall ances
this point atooe in
Conference.
jets,
R. L.
the
right-
in
formulation of acceptance/rejection
illustrating
In
Simpson and
but
than
experimental
total
quantities.
Since the
experiments
thoroughness, than
of
on the
it
information.
the
strongest
has
uncertainty
in
is
(b),
category redundant
it
is
by R.
J.
Moffat and,
accuracy of
each output
ter program.
Routine,
facilitating
result
difference in
this
Launder
and P.oddi
to attribute equation
between
to
difference
the
unbal-
"
"threeis
less
two
summed
is usually
large,
is
and more than
instrument, for category
for category (b),
,nc-irtainty
analysis is
is
of outcomes.
Tie primary
the time and trou'ile required.
done,
essentially
the
anslysis
in
argument However,
design of ex-
added work needed to estimate the
trivial
careful use of uncertainty experimental
of
instructive
control
is
one type
extreme
be more
the use of uncertainty
that
with
to do one experiment
that might
for
shows, once
comparias.ns between
recommended.
been conventional
better
measurements
tool available
critical,
-1
for data sets.
data evaluation of
the
In planning an experiment
single
the paper
periments
criteria
significance.
raised against use of uncertainty analysis as
the posit-Jon
to comparison of data to
of the momentum-integral
a variety of experiments
(c)
'
-""
the preliminary work of data evalua-
experimental uncertainty
including
to provide
given in
For
that this attribution has no validity when the unbalance
Simpson's point has considerable In
that
left-hand sides
dimensionalizy," the
commenting
noted
Lhe this
for example, 0130).
Peoper understanding of Luch analysis i,; impor-
Moffat in this volume.
tant to the comparison of data sets from different rust rigs, computation,
See, (Flow
when data are reduzzd by compuanalysis would go a long way toward
results and computation,
(See also remarks of B. Cantwell on requirements
and is
strongly
.
for future accessions
to the data library.) In detail
addition to deciding what measurementn are to be made (to be discussed below),
data,
and
the
range
which
the
experimente
accuracy
his
are
needed,
statements of
the
Cheap
In
the
measurements.
will
cover
experiments
be
forced
that
for
may
remember
choose
range
In
most
and which
and enough simply
imply
measurements experiments
that
are
may
be
st:-eamwise
range and
determined useful
by in
the some
points
density,
and Lo
experimenter's cases,
but
explore,
producing
for
derivatives
to permit
to
the widest
the
capable of
"enough
taken
time
of
involving advanced and expensive data analysis, only
is
he will use
spacing
the
should be
the
cases
the
results of
many purposes
profiles
variables,
the
to measure
there
of
more
and
number for which his test rig is
required accuracy.
should
the
experiments
highest Reynolds
experimenter
of
must
in
a smooth
curve."
of measured
this.)
:w4
(He
quantities
These semi-tvivial
some extent the accuracy, budget
experiments
of
time
which
and money. are
L
.•
poorly
27 -I
planned or that have to be skimped for lack of time and money are often useless, a4y even play a negative, than what
is
measured
calibration chains,
whether
the result-s
d.ita from a careful
Wherever
possible,
in
analysis
later
trustworthy.
or if
and procedurej,
all tend
the turbulence
from his hot wires, analyzed
are
Redundancy
closure checks using fundamental principles,
documentation of test configurations the
Far more important
time-consuming role in data evaluations.
is
should
if
more
complicated
tunnel documentation,
of this
trustworthiness.
record the fluctuating signals
poasible his laser velocimeler,
years
checks,
and fuily reported uncertainty of
toward creation
experimenter
and
so that the data can be re-
statistics
become
of
interest
or
if
queries arise about the data. A further ence with many
problem regarding
trustworthiness
is
that of "one-lab" data.
flows evaluated for this conference suggests
relying on a data set from one lab and one apparatus. tainties higher for
Experi-
the very real hazards of
Not only are residual uncer-
"one-lab" data, but also, far more often than not, comparison of
data frcm several test rigs raises fundamental questions that need resolution by further experimentation. Johnston, as:
(See
J. B. Jones,
(i)
laminar-turbulent
separated
flows,
for example
and S. Birch.)
data evaluations
of
J.
K. Eaton
and J.
P.
L
This remark has p 1
4+n*LRECL, n-integer maximum Fortran length
The BLKSIZE chosen
in FB and VB should reflect
the compromise
tion of
number
accesses
the
reducing
core
of
available
for
I
to
the device
program use.
and
increase
Different
FORMAT
between in
reduc-
buffer size,
statements
with
po3libly different FORTRAN record lengths can refer to the same data set.
The
longest of the Fortran record lengths associated with a data set as its "maximum Fortran leugth". The physical organization of data in the device is as shown in Fig. data
are
separated
enable start/sto-s,
by so-called
"inter-block
is
transferred
various
cases.
DCB-(RECFM=FB,
to
provide
Blocks of
synchronization,
to
and to provide the required latency.
The actual record length can be less than, tran length.
gaps,"
1.
equal to or greater than maximum For-
The way actual data are written into the buffer and the way the buffer onto the device depends All LRECL-80,
data
on the record format.
processed
BLKSIZE-8000,
onto
DEN-3).
"64
t-pe
for
the
Fig. 2 illustrates the 1980
Conference
use
BLOCK of data
BLOCK of data
INTER- BLOCK GAP (IBG)
Figure ]
65
DEVICE STORAGE SPACE
I LK
RECFLM -
Logical Record
BD
Block Descriptor Word '4 bytes)
AR
-
Actual Record
SD
Segment D
B
-
Buffer or Block
LT
Blanks
IN CORE
F
---BI
-
-
B2 -
B3
'-"
-
-
B4
--
b"4
..
IN DEVICE
"Bi-
L K• •
i
-. UF-
AR3
AR.
IN CORE
RECFM - FB •
~LR1 -AR1 A-
.
B4
B3
B2
-
LR3
LR2
-4 LUFI
AR2
-
AR3
!-
.
LR4--•"'
=
-AR3--4
-
L-F
B
C
IN DEVICE
L• •
B
Figure 2 (cont.)
66 .
::: ::::::: ::::::::::::: :: ::::::::::::::::::: ••!:: :::::::
.
.
.'.-
!:
-. -
2 1 ...::*,
.
~i
. -
,
RECFM
IN CORE
-V
B34
B3
B2
Bl
IN DEVICE
__f~-
ILB GD
s
-
BI AR].
B2
-.
B3
-
k-
J
D Dý
AR3
"2
ODCj''
B-5 ARL
A12 B is
"I
AR3
considered "full" i.f
D
AR3
AR7W
UIF
:
UF < LIRECL
and next block is started
IN DEVICE BSI
RLECFM
B4
IN GOAE
VB
RECE'1
-
AR1
I S1
AR?.
AR3
IIAR3
'B
IN CORE
=U
B4
B3
B2
B].
IN DEVICE
AR] B
B
R2
BA
3
Figure 2 (end)
67
2..
B
4A3
APPENDIX II.
Sample File
1
1.
FLOW TITLE: CASE 8631; SETTLES, G. S., FITZPATRICK, T. J. AND BOGDONOFF, S. M.; "ATTACHED AND SEPARATED COMPRESSION CORNER FLOWFIELDS IN HIGH REYNOLDS NUMBER SUPERSONIC FLOW",
2.
REVISION
3.
EVALUATORS: RUBESIN, M. W. AND HORSTMAN, RESEARCH CENTER, MOFFETT FIELD, MOUNTAIN
4.
EXPERIMENT LOCATION AND DATE: CAMPUS, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY,
S5.
ABSTRACT OF EXPERIMENT: THESE RESULTS FOLLOW AN EXTENSIVE STUDY OF SHOCK WAVE / TURBULENT BOUNDARY LAYER INTERACTIONS AT TWO-DIMENSIONAL COMPRESSION CORNERS. THE CORNER MODELS WERE MOUNTED ON THE FLOOR OF THE PRINCETON UNIVERSITY 0.2 X 0.2 M HIGH REYNOLDS NUIBER SUPERSONIC BLOWDOWN WIND TUNNEL. TII TEST MACH NUMBLR WAS 2.8 TO 2.9, AND THE FREE-STREAM UNIT REYNOLDS NUM1BER WAS 6.3E+07/M. FLOWFIELD DATA ARE PRESENTED HERE FOR CCMPRESSSION CORNER ANGLES OF ALPHA=8 DEGREES (CASE A), 16 DEGREES (CASE B), 20 DEGREES (CASE C), AND 24 DEGREES (CASE D). CASE A IS A FULLV ATTACHED FLOW, WHILE CASE B IS NEAR INCIPIENT SEPARATION. CASES C AND D BOTH INVOLVE SEPARATED FLOW AT THE CORNER LOCATION. SURFACE AND FLOWFIELD MEASURErMENTS ARE GIVEN AT SELECTED STATIONS THROUGHOUT EACH INTERACTION. FINALLY, ADDITIONAL DATA SETS (CASES E-H) INCLUDE WALL PRESSURE MEASUREMENTS AND SEPARATION AND REATTACHMENT LOCATIONS FOR THE 20 DEGREES COMPRESSION CORNER OVER A REYNOLDS NUMBER RANGE, BASED ON INCOMING BOUNDA'RY LAYER THICKNESS, OF 0.8E+06 TO 7.6E+06. THE X COORDINATE IS DEFINED IN THE STREAMWISE DIRECTION ALONG THE SURFACE OF THE WIND TUNNEL WALL AND THE COMPRESSION RAMP. THE ORIGIN OF X IS AT THE COMPRESSION CORNER; THUS, ALL LOCATIONS UPSTREAM OF THE CORNER BEAR NEGATIVE X-VALUES, WHILE ALL THOSE ON THE RAMP BEAR POSITIVE VALUES. THE Y COORDINATE IS ZERO ON THE TEST SURFACE AND POSITIVE ABOVE IT, AND IS ORIENTED WITH RESPECT TO THE TEST SURFACE ACCORDING TO THE TABLE G:VEN BELOW.
DATE:
NOVEMBER
CASE A
18,
C
GREATER
Y ORIENTATION VERTICAL NORMAL TO VERTICAL
RAMP
SURFACE
NORMAL
RAMP
SURFACE
RAMP
SURFACE
RAMP
SURFACE
TO
VERTICAL NORMAL
M
TO
VERTICAL NORMAL
TO
REFERENCES: 1. SETTLES, G. TURBULENT BOUNDARY
S. "AN EXPERIMENTAL STUDY OF COMPRESSIBLE LAYER SEPARATION AT HIGH REYNOLDS NUMBER," 68
i
FORRESTAL
THAN
0.0127 M LESS THAN OR EQUAL. TO 0.0102 GREATER THAN 0.0102 M
D
C. C., NASA AMES VIEW, CA 94035
GAS DYNAMICS LABORATORY, PRINCETON, NJ 08544
X RANGE LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.0254 M GREATER THAN 0.0254 M LESS THAN 0.0 M GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.0 M LESS THAN OR EQUAL TO 0.0127 M
B
6.
1980
.•i•"i. •- ?i- • i- '- / .•
-
.
..
-
•
- .-
•-.
..---
PH.D. DISSERTATION, AFROSPACE AND M1ECHANICAL SCIENCES DEPARTMENT, NJ, SEPTEMBER 1975. PRINCETON, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY, 2. SETTLES, G. S., BOGDONOFF, S. M. ANn VAS, I. E., "INCIPIENT SEPARATION OF A SUPERSONIC TURBULENT BOUNDARY 14, AIAA JOURNAL, VOL. LAYER AT HIGH REYNOLDS NUMBERS," JANUARY 1976, PP. 50-56. 3. SETTLES, G. S., VAS, I. E., AND BOGDONOFF, S. M., "DETAILS OF A SHOCK-SEPARATED TURBULENT BOUNDARY LAYER AT A COMPRESSION CORNER." AIAA JOURNAL, VOL. 14, DECEMBER 1976, PP. 1709-1715. 14 HORSTMAN, C. C., SETTLES, G. S., VAS, I. E-. BOGDONOFF, S. M. AND HUNG. C. M., "REYNOLDS NUMBER EFFECTS ON SHOCK-WAVE TURBULENT BOUNDARY LAYER INTERACTIONS," AIAA JOURNAL, VOL. 15, AUGUST 1977, PP. 1152-1158. 5. SETTLES, G S. , FITZPATRICK, T. J. AND BOGDONOFF, S. M., "DETAILED STUDY OF ATTACHED AND SEPARATED COMPRESSION CORNER FLOWFIELDS IN HIGH REYNOLDS NUMBER SUPERSONIC FLOW," AIAA JOURNAL, VOL. 17, JUNE 1979, PP. 579-585, 7.
INSTRUMENTATION: WALL STATIC PRESSURE DISTRTRUTTONS WERE SENSED THROUGH ORIFICES INSTALLED IN THE COMPRESSION CORNER MODELS. SKIN FRICTION WAS ESTIMATED BY PRESTON TUBE MEASUREMENTS. SEPARATION AND REATTACHMENT LOCNTIONS WERE FOUND FROM SURFACE STREAK METHODS AND WERE CONFIRMED BY THE OTHER MEASUREMENTS MEAN FLOW PROFILES WERE OBTAINED FROM SURVEYS OF PITOT PRESSURE, STATIC PRESSURE, AND TOTAL TEMPERATURE.
8.
EXPERIMENTAL PARAMETERS: IN ALL CASES THE INFINITY CONDITIONS ARE DEFINED IN TERMS OF BOUNDARY LAYER EDGE AT X=-0.5 M (THE INCOMING TURBULENT BOUNDARY LAYER AND FREE STREAM JUST BEFORE THE BEGINNING OF THE INTERACTION). FLOWFIELD PROFILES FOR CASES A-D ARE GIVEN BELOW. .1
,
TEST CONDITIONS XMINF ALPHA (DEG.) REINF/M TTOT (DEG. K) TW (DEG. K) TINF (DEG. K) UINF (M/S) (N/N**2) PINE
CASE A 2.87 8.0 6.3E+07 280 291 106 592 2,3E+O4
CASE B 2.85 16.0 6.3E+07 268 282 102 576 2.4E+04
CASE C 2.79 20.0 6. 3E+07 258 274 101 562 2.6E+014
CASE D 2.84 24.0 6.3E+07 262 276 100 569 2.4E+O4
COMMENTS MACH NUMBER CORNER ANGLE UNIT REYNOLDS TOTAL TEMP. WALL TEMP. STATIC TEMP. VELOCITY STATIC PRES.
DELINF
0,026
0.026
0.025
0.023
B.
(M)
L.
NO.
COMP. CORNER TO NOZZLE THF-.7;, •.
i.
FLOWFIELD
PROFILES
~CASES E-H."" TW(DEG. KM) 1..
.. .XMINF L ,ALPHA ". i.,TW
"r .
(UEG.) (M) R E NF /M TTOT (DEG. K) (DEG. K) L
ARE
ALSO
GIVEN
BELOW
28070-063
28
289P060.06
2. 95 21 0 .9.0 8 . 6 .3E+07 272 286
L .9 6 20 .0 . 98 . 3. 1E+08 268 28 1
2. 90 20. ?.0 3. 1 E+ 08 275 289
69
FOR
THE
[
THICK.
.f
ADDITIONAL
291CK
.
2.38820 . 98 .0. ... 3 .1IE+08 277 29 1
D
S.
FR
M
. "
"
3-
TINF (DEG. K) UINF (M/S) PINF (N/MI**2) DELINF (M) DELSINF (M) THETAINF (M) L.I (M)
99 58Q 2.1E+04 0.012 0.0033 0.0006 1.07
97 585 9.8E+04 0.011 0.0025 0.0004 1.07
103 589 1.1E+05 0.018 0.0046 0.0008 1.98
104 589 1.IE+D0 0.025 0.0061 0.0011 2.88
9.
MEASURED VARIABLES: X - STREAMIJISE COORDINATE (M) PW - WALL PRESSURE (N/M*42) CFINF - FRICTION COEFFICIENT BASED ON INFINITY CONDITION DENSITY AND VELOCITY XS - SEPARATION DISTANCE (M) XR - REATTACHMENT DISTANCE (M) Y - TRANSVERSE COORDINATE (M) XM - MACH NUMBER P - PRESSURE (N/M442) u i,.'AN S1;,..,,,ISE VELOCITY (M/S) REINF - REYNOLDS NUMBER BASED ON DELINF AND I'INF
10.
MEASUREMENT UNCERTAINTY: PW=+ OR - 2% CFINFý÷ OR 15% U=+ OR - 5% P=+ OR - 4% M=+ OR -3%/
S11.
TAPE ORGANIZATION: THE TAPE IS A 2400 FOOT, 9 TRACK, ODD PARITY. PHASE ENCODED, UNLABELLED TAPE WRITTEN AT A DENSITY OF 1600 BITS PER INCH ACCORDING TO EBCDIC CODE. THE RECORD FORMAT IS FIXED AND BLOCKED; RECORD LENGTH=80 BYTES; '00 RECORDS PER BLOCK; BLOCkSIZE=8000 BYTES. NORMALIZED DATA ARE CREATED FROM MEASURED DATA AS FOLLOWS: XNORM-(X-XMIN)/(XMAX-XMIN) NORMALIZED VALUES ARE INTEGERIZED BY MULTIPLYING BY 10000 "AND ROUNDING UP OR DOWN TO THE NEAREST INTEGER IXNORM:XNORM4 10000 THUS EACH NORMALIZED AND INTEGERIZED DATUM IS WRITTEN ONTO "TAPE AS A NUMbER BETWEEN 0 AND 10000. ALL NULL UATA ARE WRITTEN AS 20000. THE EQUATION DESCRIBING THE RELATION BETWEEN ACTUAL DATA AND THC NORMALIZED DATA ON TAPE IS X=XMIN+(((XMAX-XMIN)*IXNORM)/10000) WHERE X, XMAX AND XMIN ARE REAL AND IXNORM IS AN INTEGER.
FILE I
#
NREC
CnNTENTS TEXT FILE
FORMAT
X XPIW/PINF XPW/PINF X,PW/PINF
2E13 .6 2E13.6 216
X,PW/PINF
2E13.6
49
2
3.49
COMMENTS CONTAINS ITEMS 1-11 OF THIS WRITE-UP CASE A RECORD I MAXIMUM VALUES RECORD 2 MINIMUM VALUES RECORDS 3-49 NORMALIZED VALUES CASE B RECORD 1 MAXIMUM
VALUES
70
=
=
•.'-
..
'4
X,PW/PIHF X, PW/PINF
2E13.6 216
X.PW/PINF X, PW/pINH X, PW/PINF
2E13.6 2E13. 6 215
CASE C RECORD I MAXIMUM VALUES RECORD 2 MINIMUM VALUES RECORDS 3-49 NORMALIZED V A LVU ES"
X,PW/PINF X,PW/PINF ,X,PJ/P,,
2E13.6 2E13.6 216
CASE D RECORD 1 MAXIMUM VALUES RECORD 2 MINIMUM VALUES RECORDS 3-49 NORMALIZED VALUES
X,PW/PINF X,PW/PINF X, PW/PINF
2E13.6 2E13.6 216
CASE E RECORD I MAXIMUM VALUES RECORD 2 MINIMUM VA!LUES RECORDS 3-49 NORMALIZED VALUES
X,PW/PINF X,P;/PINF X, PW/PINF
2E13.6 2E13.6 216
CASE F RECORD I MAXIMUM VALUES RECORD 2 MINIMUM VALUES RECORDS 3-49 NORMALIZED VALUES
X,PW/PINF X,PW/PINF X, PW/PINF
2E13.6 2E13.6 216
CASE G RECORD I MAXIMUM VALUES RECORD 2 MINIMUM VALUES RECORDS 3-49 NORMALIZED
'49
u9
6
49
./_49
8
49
RECORD 2 MINIMUM VALUEf2 RECORDS 3-49 NORMALIZED V A Lu ES
"VA.LUES 9
10
49 X,PW/PINF X,PW/PINF XPW/PINF
2E13.6 2E13.6 216
CASE H RECORD I MAXIMUM VALUES RECORD 2 MINIMUM VALUES RECORDS 3-49 NORMALIZED VALUES
X,CFINF XCFINF
2E13.6 2E13.6 216
CASE A RECORD 1 MAXIMUM VALUES RECORD 2 MINIMiUM VALUES RECORDS 3-29 NORMALIZED VALUES
X,CFINF X,CFINF
2E13.6 2E13.6
X,CFINF
216
XCFINF X,CFINF XCFINF
2E13.6 2E13.6 216
X,CFINF
2E13.6
29
"X,CFINF
"Ii
12
13
21
23
20
71
CASE B RECORD 1 MAXIMUM VALUES RECORD 2 MINIMUM VALUES RECORDS 3-21 NORMALIZED VALUES CASE C RECORD 1 MAXIMUM VALUES RECORD 2 MINIMUM VALUES RECORDS 3-23 NORMALIZED VALUES CASE D RECORD
1 MAXIMUM
VALUE:
14
15
X.CFINF X.CFXNF
2E13.6 216
XS.XR XS, XR XS, XR
2'E13.6 2E 13. 6 21T6
6
RECORD 2 ilIIIMUM VALUES RECORDS 3-20 NORMALIZED V AL U ES CASES C-H RECORD I MAXIMIUM VALUES RECORD 2 111NIMUN VALUES RECORDS 3-8 NORMALIZED V ALU ES uASE A STATION
'44 Y,XM. P/PINF, U/UTNF
1 l,X=-O.025'4
Mi
'4EI3.6
RECORD
I MAXtrUM
VALUES
U/UINF
'4E13.6
RECORD
2 MINIMUM
VALUES
U/UINF
'416
RFCORD VAiLU ES
3-44
YXI, P/PINF,
16
CASE A STATioN
41 Y X MI,P/P I N F, U/UINF Y.XI. P/PINF, U/UI1F Y,XI, P/PINF, U/UINF
17
NORMALIZED
MI
2'4,X=0.0
VALUES`
4E 13. 6
RECORD
1 MAXIMUM
'4E13.6
RECORD
2 MINIMUM VALUES
'416
RECORD VALUES
3-41
CASE A STATION
35
NORMALIZED
29,X=0.0025
11
Y, XM, P/PI NF, U/UINF Y .Xl, P/P INF, U/UINF Y , Xi,P/P INT. U/UIHF
18
RECORD
I MAXIMUM
VALUES
'4E13 .6
RECORD
2 MINIMUM
VALUES
416
RECORD VALU ES
3-35
CASZ A STATION
40 Y,XM. P/PINT, U/UINF Y,XM, P/PINT. U/UINF Y .XM, P/PINF. U/UINF
19
4 E 13 .6
"l
VALUES
RECORD
2 MINIMUM
VALUES
RECORD VALUES
3-40
RECORDI)
4 E13 .6 '41G
CASE A STATION YXM. P/P IXF, U/UINF PIP INT Y ,XM U/UINF
31,X=0.0051 MAXIMUN1
4E13.6
41
NORMALIZED
N~ORMALIZED
33,X=0.0i02
11
4E13.6
RECORD
1 MAXIMUM
VALUES
'4E13.6
RECORD
2 MINIMUM
VALUES
'416
RECORD
3- 4 1.
Y ,Xi, P/PINTF. U U IN r
VALU ES
72
- ANI. Z L:ZE)
I. 20
34
~Y.X'M'P/PINFI
•
U U/UINF . ,X,.,P/P:NF, U/UINF YX , P/P IrF, U/UINF
21
23
25
•
VALUES
4 E13,6
RECORD
2
VALUES
416
RECORD V A LU ES
3-34
NORMALIZED
M
4E13.6
RECORD
I MAXIMUM
VALUES
4E13.6
RECORD
2
VALUES
416
RECORD VALUES
3-3S
MINIMUM
NORMALIZED
52,X=0.0663
M
Y,XM,P/PINF, U/UIF
4E13 .6
RECORD
I MAXIMUM
VALUES
YXM, P/PINF, U/UINF
4E13.6
RECORD
2
VALUES
Y,XM,P/PINF, U/UINF
416
RECORD VALUES
3-41
40
CASE A STATION
NORMALIZED
69,X=0.1372
M
RECORD
I
MAXIMUM
4E13.6
RECORD
2
MINIMUM VALUES
416
RECORD VA LU ES
3-40
41
CASE B STATICN
VALUES
NORMALIZED
5,X=-0.0381
M
4Z13.6
RECORD
1 MAXIMUM
VALUES
4E13.6
RECORD
2 MINIMUM
VALUES
416
RECORD V'ALUES
3-41
41
CASE B STATION Y ,XIP/PINF, U/UINF Y, XM P/PINF, U/UINF Y.XM, P/PINF, U/UINF
MINIMUM
4E13.6
NORMALIZED
17,X=-0.0127
M
4E13.6
RECORD
I
MAXIMUM
VALUES
4E13.6
RECORD
2
MINIMUM
VALUES
416
RECORD V, L LU ES
3-41
73
-- 9 .
MINIMUM
47,X=O.Oq57
CASE A STATION
Y,XM, P/PINF, U/UINF Y,XMP/PINF, U/UIHF Y,XM, P/PINF, U/UINF
-
I MAXIriUM
41
.Y.XM,P/PINF, U/UINF Y,XM, P/PINF, U/UINF YY,XM,P/PINF, U/UINF
24
M
RECORD
CASE A STATION
SU/UINF 22
39,X=O .0254
4E13.6
35 - .Y,X N, P/PINF. U/UINF Y,XM,P/PINF, U/UINF Y,XMP/PINF,
"A'
cAs: A STATION
NORMALIZED
"m 26
Y,XM,P/PINF, U/UINF Y,XMP/PINF, U/UtINF Y,XM,P/PINF, U/UINF
27
VALUES
4EI3.6
RECORD
2
VALUES
416
RECORD VALUES
3-41
MINIMUM
M0G
NORMALIZED
33,X=0.0
r" -
RECORD
I MAXIMUM
VALUES
4613.6
RECORD
2 MINIMUM
VALUES
416
RECORD VALUES
3-142
NORMALIZED
N_
41.XzO.5OO
4E13.6
RECORD
1 MAXIMUM
VALUES
4E13.6
RECORD
2
VALUES
416
RECORD VALUES
3-42
CASE B STATION
MINIMUM
NORMALIZED
53,X=0.
191
M
4E13.6
RECORD
1 MAXIMUM
VALUES
4E13.6
RECORD
2 MINIMUM
VALUES
416
RECORD V A LU ES
3-q1
a
.'.
CASE B STATION
38
NORMALIZED
61.X=0.0381
M
4EI3.6
RECORD
I MAXIMUM
VALUES
4E13.6
RECORD
2
VALUES
416
RECORD VALUES
3-38
CASE
44
MINIMUM
NORNALIZED
B
"STATION Y,XM,P/PINF, U/UINF Y',XM. P/PINF, U/UINF
0
4E13. 6
41
Y,XM,P /PINF, "UUINF
0i
1 MAXIMUM
CASE B STATION
Y, XM, P/?IHF. U/UINF Y XM, P/P INF, UIUUIHF Y,Xi-iP/PINF, U/UINF
31
RECORD
42
Y,XM,P/PINF, U,'UINF YXIMP/PINF, U/UINF Y,XM,P/PINF, U/UINF
30
4EI3.6
CASE B STATION
Y,XM,P/PINF, U/UINF Y,XM,P/PINF, U/UINF Y, M,P/PINF, U/UINF
29
25,X:=-0
42 YXMP/WIN , U/UINF Y,XMP/PINF, U/UINF Y,XMP/PINF, U/UINF
28
CASE B STATION
41
73,X=0.0762
M
4E13.6
RECORD
I MAXIMUM
VALUES
4E13.6
RECORD
2 MININUM
'VALIE-S
416
RPECO.RD VALUES
3-qt
74
NOP21ALIZE`
32
45
CASE B STATION Y'XM,P/PINF, U/UI(F Y,XM.P/PINF. U/UINF
1 MAXIMUM
VALUES
4E13.6
RECORD
2
VALUES
RECORD VA LU ES
3-45
CASE
14,X=-O.0381
M
4E13.6
RECORD
I MAXIMUM
VALUES
4E13.6
RECORD
2
VALUES
Y,XM, P/PINF, U/UINF
416
RECORD VA L UES E
3-q0
47
CASE C STATION
36,X:-0.0111
m"
1 MAXIMUM
VALUES
4E13.6
RECORD
2
VALUES
416
RECORD VALUES
3-47
MINIMUM
NORMALIZED
C
STATION
50,X=0.0
4E13.6
RECORD
1 MAXIMUM
VALUFS
4E13.6
RECORD
2
VALUES
416
RECORD VALUES
3-37
30
CASE C STATION
"U/UINF
NORMALIZED
RECORD
CASE
Y ,XM,P/PINr-, U/UINF YiXM.P/PINF, U/UINF Y,XM,P/PINF,
MINIMUM
UEI3.6
37 Y,XMP/PINF, U/UINF Y,XM, P/PINF, U/UINF YXM,P/PINF, U/UINF
36
NýRMALIZED
YXMP/PINF, U/UINF
Y,XM.P/PINF, U/UINF Y °XM, P/P 'tF, U/UINF Y, X ,P/PINF, U/UINF
35
MINIMUM
C
STATION
34
Mr
RECORD
40
YXMP/PINF,. U/UINF
1397
LIE13.6
7,XM,P/PINNF , U UINFf416 33
83,X=0.
MINIMUM
M
NORMALIZED
55,X=O.0O04
M
4E13.6
RECORD
I MAXIMUM
VALUES
4E13.6
RECORD
2 MINIMUM
VALUES
RECORD
3-30
416
NORMALIZED
"VALUES 37
25
CASE C STATION Y,XM,P/PINF, U/UINF Y,XM,P/PINF, U/UINF Y,XM ,P/PINF, U/UINF
M
4EI3.6
RECORD
I MAXIMUM
VALUES
4E13.6
RECORD
2
VALUES
q16
RECORD VALUES
3-25
75
..
66,X=0.0127
S...
MINIMUM
NORMALIZED
I,.
V= 38
CASE C STATION
39 Y,XMP/PINF, U/UINF Y,XM,P/PINF, U/UINF Y,XM,P/PIN , U/UINF
39
70,Xý0.0254
M
4E13.6
RECORD
1 MAXIMUM
VALUES
4E13.6
RECORD
2
VALUES
416
RECORD VALUES
3-39
MINIMUM
-F
CASE C STATION
38
NORMALIZED
.5,XX0.0413
M
Y. XM, P/PINF, U/UINF Y,XMIP/PINF, U/UINF Y,X1.X ,P/PINF, U/UiNF
40
I
MAXIMUM
VALUES
iE13.6
RECORD
2 MINIMUM
VALUES
416
RECORD VALUES
3-38
NORMALIZED
86.X=0.0762
f.
4E13.6
RECORD
I MAXINUN
VALUES
'4E1 .6
RECORD
2 MINIMUM
VALUES
416
RECORD VALUES
3-41
CASE C STATION
47
N
,iAXIMU.1 VALUES
RECORD
I
U/UINF YXM,- P/ P I MF,-
4E13.6
RECORD
2
U/UINF
416
RECORD VALUEE
3-47
MINIMUM
VAF.UES
NORhALIZEb
2,X=-0.0635
M
4F13.6
RECORD
1 MAXIMUM
VALUES
6
RECURD
2
VALUES
RECORD VALUES
3-49
4E13
..- -
-
CASE 1) STATION
119
IL..
NORMALIZED
94,X=0.1143
4E13.u
Y,XM,P/PINF, U/UINF Y,XM, P/PINF, :;/UINF
-
:.
CASE C STATION
Y.XM,P/PINF. U/UINF Y,XM, P, " INF,
42
RECORD
41 Y,XN, '/PINF, U/UINF YXM, P/PINF, U/UINF Y, Xl,P/PINT, U/UINF
4 1
4E13.6
MINIMUM
Y,XM, P/PINT,
U/UINF
43
'416
CASE
48
D 10,X -C.O0305
STATION Y,XM,P/PINF, U/UIN F Y ,X.M, P/PIN , U/UiNF Y,Xi,.P/PIN ,; U/UINF
NOMI,:ALIZED
4E13
6
RECORD
1 MAXIMUM
qE13
6
RECORD
2
REEC 0 V AL U ES
3-ti8
416
""76
VALUES
'1IN:rJUPI VALUES NO4RMALIZED
"
F44 41
CASE D
Y.XM, pip I F, U/UINF / XI
i4E13.G
IiNPF,4
3
U/IF4G
145
48
M
RECORD
1 MAXIMUM
VALUES
4E13.6
RECOiD
2 MINIMUM
VALUES
416
RECORD V ALU ES
3-48 NORMALIZED
CASE D STATION
26,X=0.0102 M
4 E 13 .6
RECORD
1 MAXIMUM
VALUES
'4E13.6
RECORD
2 MINIMUM
VALUES
416
RECORD) 3-39 VALUES
46CASE
D STATION Y ,XII, P/ P INF, U/U I NF Y ,XM, P/P I F, U/UINF Y ,XM, P/PINfl, U/UINF
NORMALIZED
33,X=0.0305
RECORD
1 MAXIMUM
VALUES
4 E 13 .6
RECORD
2 MINIMUM
VALUES
416
RECORD V A LU ES
3-46
NORMALIZED
CASE D STATION~ 39,X=0.0610
M
4E13.6
RECORD
1 MAXIMUN
VALUES
4 E 13.6
RECORD
2 MINIMUM
VALUES
416
RECORD 3-47 V A LU E:S
47
CASE D STATION Y.XM, P/PINF, U/UINF Y.XM,P/PINF, U/UINF Y,XII1,P/PINF, U/UINF
M
4 E 13 .6
47 Y, XI, P/P INF, U/UINF Y.XM, P/PINF. U/JINF Y,XM, P/PINF, U/UINF
*49
2,,=.
4 E 13 .6
39 Y ,X M, P'PIN F, L -J I NF Y,XM. P/PINF, U/UlI NF Y ,XI, P/PINF, U/U IN F
48
NORMALIZED
Xr,P/P I F,
!J/UINF y X, XI, P/ PINm F U/U I NF
47
VALUES
EOD2MNMMVLE
CASE D STATION
Y,
1 MIAXIMUMI
RECORD 3-u1 VA LU E.S
Y.XI, P.' PIN F, U /U INF
46
RECORD
NOnMAL.IZED
47,: X ).
However,
very careful
consideration
specify suitable boundAry conditions and test results. regards It
it
excludes blowing, or
This restriction was made since it before
it
was felt
was possible
to
In fact the present evaluator
these flows as more suitable to a conference on very complex turbulent flows.
should also be noted
that experiments
with foreign gas
injection and experiments
which concentrate on heat transfer aspects of injection have not been considered. Even within this restricted
class of flows
there
is
a large amount of data.
In
fact over 200 boundary-layer developments u±th blowing or suction through porous surfaces tables
have been of
reported
measured
in
the
literature
profiles are
available.
gradient a wide range of pressure-gradient speeds
and
at
supersonic
CAmbridge University,
speeds,
Cambridge,
and
in
CB2 IPZ,
and for many In
of these developments
addition to
flows
in
conditions have been studied, many
cases
the
mars
zero
p
full
pressure
both at low
flow rate through the
England. 112
.-..
%....':'
.. "
.'.
-.-.....
-'-:..".
.......
.-..
.-..
"..
-.-..
,"...
..
_
surface the
varies
same
imply
blowing
that
boundary In
along
the
(or
suction)
results
tha cases in
particularly it
form of
whatover
it
guise
is
tions.
In
in
results.
comparable
spite
is
studies
conditions,
since
comparison
to
be
the differences
in
used,
particular
In
the lack
rather it
of
has
than been
forri
in
many in
to
measurements,
but
cases
inaccurate
this
Kays,
turbulent
measurements
were
and Moffat
k972).
shear stress
In
stress,
obtained the skin fric-
especially
at
the
equation,
higher
*•al.
but
for
it
etill
found
differences
that
some
fitting
of in
data sets
in
the
the actual
with
discrepancies
the analysis of
have had to
and hence the
made
in
the
Basically
be
could
"tions along
with moderate
or
in
because
checking
of
the over-
later
experiments
at
Stanford
the
the
best
In
(1974)
for
rates
various
stations,
coefficients
Of course,
in
zero
was
one
gradients
the overall
equilibrium
with
the shear good
so obtained were in
The agreement was particularly pressure gradients.
chosen
results
layers
to give
Andersen
equilibrium
from these layers were
on
solid
surfaces
All these layers were checked for two-dimensionality, layer
and then
et
also studied a set of boundary-layer developments
pressure
general
results
by
the integrated equations of motion to extrapolate the
blowing
suction with
the layer.
with
other workers.
*
re-
the experimental
rejected
impossibility of
be
these workers measured both mean flow
that the skin-friction
and Orlando et al.
injection
agreement
that
blowing
flow condi-
limited by the accuracy of the hot-wire measurements of
was found
flows
(1972)
-
in
the quoted skin friction may be due to the
agreement with those obtained from a momentum balance. good
the
considering
The use of this
through the boundary layer at
used the mean-flow velocities
method is
*
not
of
number of discrepancies
m casured shear stress away from the wall to the skin friction at the wall.
i*
does
the state
two-dimensionality of the flow.
Andersen,
S.this
to cover
the various experiments.
possible a
equation.
genuine
the
appear
skin-friction coefficients.
of curve
this many of
of redundant
Redundant
~
pressure-gradient
the quoted
tends
moved by using a consistent
.-
the experimental
the momentum integral used,
Thus some of
form of analysis
and
of
should be noted that most experimenters
tion from some
all
and
directly
which a direct
these discrepancies
rates.
are
Some
layer upot-.eam of the region of injection differs
were apparent,
*
the surface.
suction
and
an adverse
as
in good
measurod
and it
gradient.
condi-
by
was found
This
layer
was
chosen for a test case together with one of Andersen's layers with injection in zeco pressure rate
of
F > 0.004
gradient. F
This
0.004
appears
to the flow with
to F -
A wide range of and blowing
in
latter layer corresponds
(F
PwVw/PeUe)
be
two-dimensional.
0.008
pressure
relatively moderate
since unfortunately In
particular
gave significant negative
experimental
favorable
to a
results
is
gradients,
none
layers with applied
skin-friction coefficients.
for
unfortunately
provides an independent measurement of skin friction.
the
the momentum balance
also available but
of
blowing
However,
layers with 4uction none
of
these
tests
the results of Loyd et
113
I'-.
*.
.".-.
and of Julien et al.
al. (1970) Andersen;
the
measurements
fluid-flow that
transfer measurements
were
(1969)
were
made
*
values as obtained
2
( )
,
,
and
W)
these
zero pressure gradient
However,
the original
and the agreemetit
two methods
by
measurements of tuir-
The tests included
bulence quantities at one station for suction rates up to ted that Vthese measurements
Thus
A full check on the reliability of these flows
is excellent.
between the two sets of values
heat-
needed.
not possible since full velocity profiles are not available.
report does quote skin-friction
uv
with extensive
energy balance.
for high suction rates in
set of results
ware obtained by Favre et al. (1966). is
parallel
in
overall
showed an excellent
developments might provide further test cases if An interesting
the same tunnel as used by
obtained in
F - -0.014
It
.
is sugges-
form a simple data set in which the predicted values of,
are
compared
with
the measured
values
for
several
suction
rates. So far the tests considered have been made in low-speed flows so that the effects of compressibility can be ignored. an
extensive
study
turbulent
of
The present evaluator and hia students have made bound-cry
with
'.ayeLs
air
injection
at
supersonic
speeds. A critical study of the results from this program has shown that the boundary layers generated in the N - 2.5 nozzle are closely two-dimensional in that the skin-
"friction
coefficients
on
solid
surfaces
are
in
close
agreement
skin-friction
with
balance measurements made in the same Mach number and Reynolds number ranges by other
'
workers in a variety of test sections. with slight
favorable pressure
used this nozzle to study layers
Thomas (1974)
gradients
for various
injection rates.
He also used
the razor-blade technique to measure skia-friction coefficients on a solid surface for the same presnure gradients and the measured values gave good agreement uith the overall momentum balance. '
Thus one of these layers is suggested as a test case.
However,
in 3pite of the care taken to eliminate spuriouc wave systems in the pressure gredients some weak waves are still present, and these waves affect one or two of the messured velocity profiles. As a result of this evaluation thz following test cases have been recommended. Case 0241.
A flow with zero pressure gradient and constant injection (Y = 0.004) as measured by Andersen,
Case 0242.
and Moffet (1972).
Kays,
A flow with an adverse pressure gradient (U.eX constant suction (F
0
.15) and
--0.004) as mziroured by Andersen, Kays, and
Moffat (1972). Case 0244.
Flows with high suction rates (-0.014 < F) as measured by Favre,
Dumas,
Verollet,
in zero pressure gradient
and Coantic (1966).
114 04.%;.•.-*:
A
-
.
.
. -,44-
.-.
.
.
.-
-,
A
.
.
.
-. ..
at supersonic speeds
A flow with favorable pressure gradient
Cabe 8301.
(2.53 < M < 2.87) and variable blowing (0.002 < F < 0.0028) as measured by Thomas Together pressure
these
four
data
the
effect
gradients,
rate.
Also
some
of
the
sets cover of
completing
this
measurements
the
main
Recently a number of workers
1967;
1979)
considerable can
he
there
used
in
still
'eqt-.
rný!'ln
in
suction
change
quantities.
Thus
layers with suction or blow-
and Nerney, balances
the pores.
a number
WPwever,
of
the
choosing
test
to
problems
cases
and
in
Dershin et al.,
to measure
skin
co
far
fric-
balances show
these
be overcome
obtained
results
1977;
Although
before
do
they
indicato
From these results
between blowing and surface roughness.
strong interaction
step
adverse
lack of direct methods of measuring
(Schetz
blowing through
are
a
turbulent
in
floating-element
developed
surfaces with
promise
of
obstacle
the results has been the
skin friction.
tion on porous
of
and
and
of the various calculation methods.
evaluation
have
favorable
suction,
to cover the main features of
assessing the acccracy of
Voisinet,
and
compressibility
ing and hence to provide a full test In
blowing
include
flows
they would appear
together
(1974).
it
a
would
appear that some of the discrepancies mentioned above may be associated with the different
experiments
with
porous
surfaces
used
and suction
blowing
in it
the is
and
in
roughness
overall
pointed out that it
is
various
recommended
specify the nature of their surface,
care to tion
of
types
believed
that
Thus
that experimenters
in
future
tAke
great
terms of pore size and distribu-
both in
characteristics.
experiments.
In
this
connection
the data sets suggested
should
it
above are not
be
influenced
by the nature of the porous surface.
Finally the evaluator would like to thank workers who have supplied original data and have answered that
a
particular
ments are
flow
considered
which could
is
not
included
inaccurate.
form useful
able value in
He would
his many questions.
In
cest cases if
choosing the
in
the
fact
to empl;asize
data sets does not
there
needed,
also like
are many
that the fact
k
imply that measure-
other sets of
measurements
and these results have bee,. of consider-
test cases mentioned above.
115
i.15.
.• 7-.
"'
"-
-
6'
REFERENCES Ai~derveii, P. S.,
W. M. Kays, and R. J. Moffat (1972). "The turbulent bouiudrry layer on a porous plate; an experimental sftudy of the fluid mnchanics for adversc pressure gr~dients," Technical Report No. 15, Dept. of Mech. Eng., Thermosciences Division, Stanford University, Staaford, California.
Dershli-, h., C. A. Lcona-.d, an-i W. H. Gallaher (1967). "Direct measurements of skin friction on a porous flat plate with mass in-,ectior." AIMA Journal, 5, 1934-1939. Favre, A., R1. Dumas, E. Verollet, and M. Coantin (1966). 'Cou,;he Amite turbulente sur pt-roi poreuse avec aspiration," Travaux dea ll.M.S.T. LA No. 130 au C.N.R.S. , J.de Mqcanique, 5, 3-28. JulenH. .,W. M. Kays, and R. J. Moffat (1969). "The turbulent Loundary layer on aporous plate: experimental study of the effects of a fa~orable pressure gradent"TchncalReport No. 4, Dept. of Mech. Eng., Therreoscienceo. Division, Stanford University, Stanford, California. Loyd, R. J., R. J. Moffat, and W. M. Kays (1970). "The turbulent boundary layer on a porous plate: an experimental study of the tluid dyn~mics with stiong favorable pressure gradients and blowing," Technical Report No.- 13, Lept. of Mech. Eng., Termosciences Division, Stanford University, Stanford, California. OradA. F., R. J. Moffat, and W4.M. Kays (1,174).
"Turbulent transport of heat andA woaentum in a turbulent boundary lay~r subject to deceleration, suction and variable wall temperature," Technical Repo'rt No. 17, Dept. of Mech. Enig., Termosciences Division, Stanford University, Stanford, California. Schetz, J. A., and B. Nerney (1977). "Turbulent boundary layers wi~h injection and surface roughness," AIMA Journal,.15, 1288-1294. Thomas, .D.(94. "Compressible turbulent boundary layers injectioa and pressure gradient," Aero Res. Counc. R & M, 3779. Voiiet
~i.
R. L. P. (1979). "Combined influence of roughness turbulent skin friction at Mach 2.9," AIMA Paper 79-0003.
116
with
:!ombinea
air
and mass transfer on
.
-.--
DISCUSSION Flows 0240/8300
"i
The proposed test cases and the summary report were accepted with the following
I
observations: I.
Prof.
Hanjalic,
who has made computations of Case 0242 (adverse pressure gradient
with suction), section was
believed that the measured
uv
profile near the end of the porous
inconsistent with those farther upstream because it
implied a sudden
increase in shear stress. 2.
It
was
felt that
the
levels of blowing, near-wall
region
computors
adopt
success
in
test cases,
because
they considered
only rather
moderate
effectively provided only a test of the modeling of the very of
a
the
flow
(i.e.,
bilogarithmic
predicting
Cf
the
near-wall
will depend
viscous
and
matching
in
predominantly
"buffer" the
layer).
If
calculations,
the
on the choice made for
the
+
dependence of the additive constant in the bi-log law on Vw" In examining the variations in skin friction from flow to flow,
3.
review committee There
is
felt that there was perhaps an overemphasis on Cf measurements.
generally
profiles,
good
consistency
between
different
experiments
even at higher blowing rates than have been recommended.
boundary layer with 3trc;ng blowing: just the development the wall • '- otress) would be required of computors. Regarding rather To
future data,
mcdest,
separate
a
low
feature
was noted that the R that caused some
Reynolds
number
Consideration
effects
case,
of mean velocity
a
(not
for the present test cases were
difficulty
in
from
strictly
those
starting computations. attributable
to
arty future measuremencs could hopefully be made with a substantial befoce blowing or suction began in order to permit the
transpiration, impermeable
it
on velocity
as an additional (or alternative)
could thetefore be given to including,
4.
several of the
section
attainment of higher starting Reynolds numbers. model that could accommodate
(On the other hand,
a turbulence
low Reynolds number influences without blowing ought
also to be able to handle them in a transpired boundary layer.)
7-"
,--
117.
j~, ...
. . ". . .
.
.. .
.. ".
-•
..... '-'-,
.
.-.. .
'. .
...
.
...
"..
....
"-.
"
".
" "°..
.
.
.'
. .
. .'
..'
.. " °.. °-
-
-
.
"
.
"
.
.
- .
" .".
.
.
"
'111
SPECIFICATIONS
FOR COMPUTATION
ENTRY CASE/INCOMPRESSIBLE Data Evaluator:
Case #0241; P.
Data Takers:
W. M. Kays, and R.
Andersen,
S.
L.
C.
Squire > 0),
(ap/Dx
Moffat
J.
(F
-0.004)
PICTORIAL 5409"IT V|w 0240.
tort L. lquLre.
Date Ivl.
1
-,.fta.i
11
W. r.alt
-
wr
I.C
.
ored
1
I
PYO
-+
-'1 Co41
1..7
w
t-
tohc., Wt1..
"
1
-'--......t-----
Wlearies ( 4 0.0$
per
0.004 .2.1
.
Plot
Ordinate
Abscissa
1
Cf
x
2
-
M
or
-r
0i'.i Data
A.". "P.
Velciy
or
TiPt all
Lay eyrs oLLh SI tloa or Blwiagt."
Ilmbr of lit-tlI
dp/dC...
4
o~ lh
"Turbuleat
Comments
Range/Position 0.0508 < x < 2.286
111
0.0508 < x ( 2.286 m
ux I.-.
3
6
4
v
0.0508 < x < 2.286 m"
U/Ue
at
x - 0.5588,
1.1684,
1.778,
2.286 m_*1
Special
"
Instruction:
Definition of Special Symbol:.; p Vw Aw P U e e
• F1
.-J
0118
; . .' 1 j
PLOT 1 CASE 0241 FILE 2 0.003
o0
0.002
Cf 0.001
0.000
-J
I
.
I
I
2
1
0
.
x (M)
PLOT 2 CASE 0241 FILE 2
0.010 Co O0
o
0.005 o 0 0
0.000 0
2
1 x (m)
119
,
PLOT 3 CASE 0241 FILE 2 0.02
0.01
0.00 02 x (M)
PLOT 4 CASE 0241 FILES 5,7,9,11
to
1.10
x
-0.5588
~-
1.1684
a
yx
0.040.04
1.778
t
()
4 ASE-4 ot-
0.00
.9
"I.0
.
,,t ",
c-
'
+
IES579 St
C' +
f+0
~2.286
-
A
4.
TT
_T••
,,, ",
U/U 120
SPECIFICATIONS FOR COMPUTATION
ENTRY CASE/INCOMPRESSIBLE Case #0242; Data Takers:
P.
S.
Andersen,
Data Evaluator:
W. M. Kays,
and R.
L. J.
C.
Squire
Moffat
(Dp/ax
U), (F
--0.004)
PIC~TflAA,b 144A64.8. Pluo 02A0.
Vue KwaiL.tort
h
P. Aadorsou V: Kays
OL . ddCs7 L yero
ILZS 31333 ,¢,,
-0
0
-C.'
C-
o56•
0.0,.
-..-..-
C-r 0
00
:
00
001,
0.2.
00.0
u
3--
-.
0
/U r reflo vi 0.T60.0
010__
00
001
2
137
137 --
*.-..;-,-,-.
-'
. I
*
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
_--*
PLOT 6 CASE 0331 FILES 31,33,33
I I
I i
-
.'-t
0.2
i 0.0
0 .3 5
0.
I
0..56
S~0I 0
0.1
0
0o
,
0
0.0
.2
I
0
0
0
S0
0
i
50
0 l0.1
o
-
0.0
00
0
.1
00
.
II
PLT
l
CASE '7
031ILS1333 0
!•
f)
)
02.
--
..>-
113 _+
.,
0•
,0
'
*
'2
:'-o .
.,
IA' --
__138
It.o
TURBULENT SECONDARY FLOWS OF THE FIRST KIND Flow 0510 Case 0511,
0512,
Evaluator:
R.
0513
B. Dean
SUMMARY
"_
INTRODUCTION In
flows
layer, a
as
plane
in
flow
turbulence
of
the
to
the
first
as
suggested
the two
that
Thi"
ot
evaluation
the potential
flow outside the
while
secondary
by the time-averaged
(1952)
Prandtl flows of action of
defined
this
second kind
the
as a
are true
anisotropic inhomogeneous Cebeci and Bradshaw
a straight rectangular duct. flow types should be described
secondary
boundary
the pressure field induces a time mean flow in.
flow direction.
kind,
for example in
flows" and "stress-induced
as Tskew-induced
(1977)
secondary
flows," respectively.
experimental data
is
conc-rned
only with
secondary
of
flows
and data have been sought for the following types of flow:
kind,
first
main
phenomena produced
turbulence,
the
curvature of
lateral
a curved duct for example,
perpendicular
secondary
have
exposed to
"Nozzles Curved ducts of arbitrary cross-section S-shaped ducts of arbitrary Surface-mounted
cross-section
bodies
Wing-body Junctions Turbomachinery A
large
fifty
number
years,
around it
have
experiments
and a In
reviewed.
of
considerable
addition,
the world were
would be cuitable,
twenty
consulted,
been
number
carried
out
of references
individuals at
in
these
(totaling
universities
flows
several
and
in
the
last
hundred)
were
research
and their advice on availability
hac bcen extremely usefu!
during
of data,
laboratories and whether
reaching the conclusions drawn from_
this survey. CRITERIA OF SELECTION The
main
objective
was
to
well as mean-flow measurements, "
In
view of
1970
papers
the complexity and
*Atkins Research
reports
of
in
this
uere
& Development,
locate
references
wiich contained
turbuleice
data,
as
sufficient quality and quantity to form test cases. class
found
to
of
secondary
contain
Woodcote Grove,
flows,
mean-flow
Ashl2y Road,
the majority data
Epsom,
only.
Surrey,
of
the pre-
Theq!
KTI8
were
513W,
England.
139
J .- •-.
•..
.
.
•
"-,
therefore discarded as data sources,
but many were clearly of a high standard and have
been used in the development of very useful calculation methods for the design of turbine cascades in turbomachinery,
for example.
Ideally, suitable references would contain total and/or static pressure distributions
and
Reynolds
profiles stresses,
of
wall
shear
stress,
mean
velocities,
triple products and intermittency.
turbulence
However,
it
intensities,
soon became clear
both mean-flow data and Reynolds-stress
that the minimum requirement of
measurements
would be met in only a few cases. Documentation of data was also an important criterion. details of reference
lengths,
It
is
essential to have
velocities and pressures used to normalize the data,
well as the author's interpretation of the uncertainty in the measured quantities. a check was made to confirm that
addition,
as In
extrapolated to the wall agreed with
uv
wall shear stress measured by other means. As
a
reviewed, body
result only
of
applying
these
three emerged as
junction by Shabaka
criteria
possibilities
(1979),
the
the
for
large
(1980)
Case 0511.
1979)
test cases.
(Shabaka,
(30"x5")
wind
tunnel,
long followed edge.
which simulated the body
by a section of constant
the corner of an idealized
surface and spanned the
full 0.127 m
thickness
0.0508 m (2")
and a blunt trailing
All tests were carried
on analog
tape and
linearization, included
(-uw)
on
the
all. triple
determination ,*
and the
The wing had a semi-elliptical ieading edge 0.1524 m (6"*)
able care was taken in obtaining
*
(1977),
out in air at a nominal tunnel speed of 33 m/s Considerft/sec) and a Reynolds number of 1.1 x 10 5 (based on wing thickness).
(100
*
These were the wing-
Nine measuring stations were located upstream of the wing leading edge and nine
downstream.
ded
references
The wing was fixed to the floor of a 0.762 x 0.127 m
1).
height of the tunnel.
(5")
of
but with a thin inlet boundary layer.
Shabaka carried out detailed hot-wire measurements in wing-body junction (Fig.
number
curved square duct by Humphrey
same curved square duct of Taylor et al. Wing-Body Junction
to
of
asymptoted
the hot-wire data and anemometer outputs were recor-
later transcribed main
Imperial
products,
to digital
College
flatness
tape for
computer.
factor,
and
turbulence
including
measurements
The
intermittency.
cross-wire
and the wing main shear stress
the tunnel main ahear stress (-uv) reasonably well
The
processing,
to the Preston-tube
data measured
on the respective
surfaces. The boundary
the streamlines in the tunnel-floor
results show that the lateral skewing of layer,
cauoed by the wing
corner flow.
It
lent
energy
kinetiz
is
leading edge,
induces streamwise
vorticity in
the
also found that the ratio between the shear stress and the turbuis
constant
over most
of
the
flow.
except
close
j
.
junction.
A!
140
-"
•
to the corner
.
Adequate edge
can
be
initial
large distance start
of
the
of
the
as
this
pressure
to
edge,
interest
dimensionally sonable
it
could well
should be started at
by
test
treating that
half
case.
the
pressure
gradient
machinery),
the
ating vortex
on
the wing-body
on
the
pressure
strength.
the
the
the
quasi-inviscid
it
is
be
the
leading but
at
a
used,
or
thickness
that
which are
calculations
the leading edge.
it
could
as
a duct.
every-where
calculations
predictions
suggested
station downstream of
may
of
leading edge
vortex-decay
Instead,
be
calculated It
on the
The one-
would be reatunnel walls
is
floor at the maximum distance from the wing. Junction
flow.
fields have
In
should consider most
practical
a significant
More information on cascades which gives
in
interaction
thu wake
corner
in
tunnel cross-section
equal to that measured on the tunnel Further work
of
upstreAm
recommended that computations should
errors
displacement
the
not
jeopardize
p(x)
beginning
downstream
is
the second measuring
distribution
assume
calculatic.i
However,
leading
in
a
measurements
leading edge
primsary
measured
for
from the
from the wing.
upstream
around
profiles
inferred
the
effect
of
applications
effect
in
streamwise
(e.g.,
turbo-
intensifying or
attenu-
these effects would help in understanding rise to "end-wall cross-flow" and leads
to reduced performance in gas turbines said similar multi-bladed turbomachinery. Case 0512.
Curved Square D'uct (Humphrey,
.umphrey tities
in
Water
a
was
1977)
used laser-Doppler velocimetry to measure mean-flow and turbulence quanduct
of
employed
square as
the
cross-section
(0.04
x 0.04
fluid medium at a bulk
m)
with
a
average velocity
90'
bend
(Fig.
of
0.89
1/s and a
2).
Reynolds number of 4.0 x 104 Considerable in
the
laser-Doppler
scatter This
care was taken to set up the experiment.
optical
choice
by Durat
of
instrumentation
et al.
(19i6)
Measurements the
90*
were
configuration
high signal-to-noife
around
system
in
with was
water
definitely
not
Gessner et
al.,
Ux,
bend,
at
U01
of
U (r,z), z
been
fully
and was
much less
this station are -• u2(r,z), z
on the
where
Ur
u 2x
U
signals
are
a
fringe
mode
forward-
signal-processing
successful
21, u uur were
but wall-shear-stress
1979),
probably be
All known sources of error
employed
use of
system.
frequency
essentially
trackers
continuous with
ratios.
of
have
This
frequency-tracking
based
data
obtained
are absent.
tour
at
No comparison
stations is
there-
of Reynolds-stress data to the wall.
A major shortcoming is the fact bend was only 45 hydraulic diameters.
would
Q. ,
a
flows,
fore possible with extrapolations *
considered.
that the inlet straight-length As pointed out by F. Gessner,
developed
at
influenced
by
significant
at
the
entrance
the
btnd
x/Dh -
to
Itself.
-2.5,
the
tangent to the the flow would
bend
This
latter
but Humphrey's
0
=
0*
(sec
influence measurements
to U.: and u x2 . In fact, he did not measure distributions u---u(r,z), and -l-u--(r,z) at any station, so the starting Oz r z
limited
141.
'.
II conditions
for
"k-c
and higher-order closure models cannot be specified satisfac-
torily. A solution Melling's This -'.
to
(1975)
This comparison was
already
36.8 duct
coincides
that the two
clude all
impasse,
data at
very nearly
states
this
suggested
diameters
with Humphrey's
by
F.
Gessner,
downstream
of
position of
the
x/Dh
is
by Humphrey in
-8.2,
-
three mean-velocity components
and
his thesis.
employ
square duct
sets of data agree quite well at a comparable not presented
to
A.
inlet.
and Gessner
Reynolds number.
Melling's results in-
five of the six components of the Rey-
nolds stress (vw excluded). Humph.:ey's
measurements
provide
a
clear demonstration of
secondary
flow of the
first kind arising through an imbalance between centrifugal force and radial preseure gradient at the side walls of the bend.
strese, while stress-driven secondary flow of the second
kind was
in
probably negligible
wall.
fluid
to be
Similarly,
driven
stabilized
at the inner-radius %i
responsible for strong cross-
stream convection of Reynolds
containing *
This motion is
wall is
the
bend.
from the
The
result
outer-radius
is
for high kinetic energy-
wall
towards
the
inner-radius
flow with a lower level of kinetic energy of turbulence convected by the secondary motion into the core region of
the flow and towards the outer-radius wall. Further work on the flow in the curved duct should include measurements of the component velocities Uz,
*.
Also
needed are
"
determined.
u 2z
and uouzin the upstream tangent,
wall-pressure
data
so that reliable
-
values of skin friction can be
From the point of view of engineering applications,
stream of the bend is of equal importance, least 40 hydraulic
diameters would help
z
as well as in the bend,
the flow field down-
and measurements throughout a length of a,,. in understanding
how the flow recovers
from
the effects of the bend. Case 0513.
Curved Square Duct with Thin Inlet Boundary Layers (Taylor et al.,
Taylor et al. (1980)
* duct
(Fig.
2)
as
1980)
have carried out a further series of experiments in the same
Humphrey
(1977)
using
similar 2
LDV
measurement 2
2
techniques.
The
2
a , 2uu U , U , U ,u Z at ueur, xz uy, ~'y a r' wcost of the stations x/h - +0.25, +2.5. Water was employed as the fluid medium ac a number was 4.0 x i04Reynolds the and m/s 1.00 of bulk average velocity quantities recorded were U,
The
experiment
has
Ul Uz, Ua, Ur
clearly
been
carried
out
with
considerable
accuracy atnd detail and the data are well tabulated in a convenient "
Test Case. thin,
However,
attention
form for use as a
the boundary layers at the inlet to the bend were (deliberately)
b.Ang only 15% of the h~draulic diameter.
The ratio of shear-layer thickness to
radius of curvature in the bend is therefore much less than for Humphrey's (1977)
*The suggestion by F. Ges3ner to use A. Melling's nizing Committee; see Specification.
flow
data has been adopted by the Orga-
142
......................................
to
*-*.
.
•.°_ -.
"
_I in
which
the
secondary and, use
in
inlet
flow
and
view o'
as a Test
conditions its
effects
were will
nearly be much
fully less
this and the fact that Humphrey's Case,
as an additional
it
is
concluded
Test Case in
developed. in
the
The
experiment
data are considered
that the Taylor
the class of flows.
et al.
strength
of
the
et
al.
satisfactory
for
of
Taylor
data will not be
Specifications
required
of zomputations have
therefore not been presented.
REFERENCES Cebeci, T., and P. Bradshaw (1977). Momentum Transfer in Boundary Layers, Publishing Corporation, McGraw Hill Book Co., New York. Durst, F., A. Melling. and J. H. Whitelaw (1976). Doppler Anemometry, Academic Press, New York.
Principles and Practice
Gessner, F. B., J. K. Po, and A. F. Emery (1979). "Measurements turbulent flow in a square duct," Turbulent Shear FLows (edited by Springer-Verlag, New York. Humphrey,
J.
A.
C.
(1977).
'Flow
in
ducts
with
curvature
and
Hemisphere
of Laser-
of developing Durst et al.),
roughness,"
Ph.D.
thesis, University of London. Melling, A. (1975). "Investigation of flow in non-circular ducts and other configurations by laser-Doppler anemometry," Ph.D. thesis, University of London.
F.-
Prandtl,
L.
Shabaka,
"Turbulent I. M. M. A. (1979). thesis, University of London.
"Ph.D.
(1952).
Essentials of Fluid Dynamics, flow
Blackle, in
an
London.
idealised
Taylor, A. M. K. P., J. H. Whitelaw, and M. Yianueskio (1980). nar and turbulent flow in a curved duct with thin inlet Contract Rep. NASW-3258.
wing-body
junction,"
"Measurements of lamiboundary layers," NASA
Uy
IDEAI.ISED WING-BODY JUNCTION
I(SHABAKA, Figur.ý I.
1979)
Secondary flow of the first
2
W
kind due to a body in
143
contact with a surface.
-
DC
tn II
00C
c'o
00
C)
L
-
-
I AI CI-4
00 00
00
C)n
144J
DISCUSSION Flow 0510 flows considered here are discussed separately.
The two very different
Concerning the idealized wing-body junction, there was some feeling that computations should begin upstream of the to capture
methods managed of
computational
effort
would
unwise
be
the vortex several
to
lines
(as
distinct
be
view
was
that,
three-dimensional
elliptic
upstream
conditions
the wing can always
do
so.
wing.
also the
of
streamwise
however,
huge It
bending of
There was a
suspicion
In
the experiment)
distribution
There were,
length.
section
supervised
had the
from
test
the
the
Computors
inviscid
arabolic
2
further
calculation), the
of
of
because
the largely
prowess at handling
predictive
over
voiced
by
flow as presented by the eval-
to
responding
acknowledged
under-
suggestion,
this
that the
accumulation
little
was
vorticity)
the swirl
by
affected
that would
other aspects
of the measurementb
tegions where
the effective viscosities were
such as substantial
very challenging,
"negative:
saJority
On
the wing root.
pose a very severe test of turbulence models because
stresses.
Reynolds
at
fully
starting
prescribe
(who
Peter Bradshaw
formed
that the three-dimensional
decay
little
(a
required
around
discussers
uator would not went
the
the calculation
thereby testing how well
vortex
the horseshoe
possibility,
to demonstrate
wishing
A;-,
this
consideration
junction,
streamwise vorticity is not confined to a simple "vortex core" as
one might think. the
Concerning
36.8D (corresponding initial
provide the bend
however,
"turbulent stresses, that
the
to -8.25
conditions
was,
predictions
flow in
in
for
expected
there was
90' be-nd, this
agreement
tc be largely pressure
an expectation confirmed by J.A.C.
were
largely
Melling's data at
flow) be used as starting conditions in The
./nolds stresses.
all
that
independent
of
whether
mean
dominated Humphrey, or
not
order to
flew development
in
uninfluenced
by
and
who had obtained
turbulent
stresses
flow were
included. it
was recomiended
tations
be extended
liptic
computations
variations
in
into for
that the test-case specifications should prescribe that computhe straight laminar
section
flow
following the
(Taylor
pressure over the cross-section
145
et
al.,
900 bend, 1980)
since fully el-
suggest
remain at the 900 station.
that
strong
"SPECIFICATIONS
FOR COMPUTATION
ENTRY CASE/INCOMPRESSIBLE R.
Data Evaluator:
Case #0511;
I.
Data Taker:
Dean
B.
Shabaka
PiCIAl$ AL Sbip"'i f1.,
voal•oI gr4 A.
Date
0510.
i nnle io,SaanoTncy
'Ti
Do-
."mber
dp/'o or
Test all
'"Cami0
. QA 2
...
iat mn;_
Lind."
.L
1
.2
f:in|--
-•
of the rllrt
V or~
m:mmtr7p
DaaTae
V1m.
of staLtiO fSaorod4
voc#tt
thereL.Cf UI7nn
l
Other Not#.
CýI'
go
j..
.....
di.
b&ri.ed
:tr|le
lead '°- in a... no-e
Ca|l"lotions
t(the
.t.'~Ed
.
ohuu|4
-i be
dýownlre. .
Ingn
I ____"_____
1.s.1
:nont
____
________---_____
no..)
i
*d,. bo.
------
............
__________ ......
Comments
P. Plot
Ordinate
Abscissa
Range/Position
I
Cf
z
0 < z < 0.08 M
Tut
2l wall Cf at
x = 0.6858 m.
2
Cf
z
0 < z < 0.03 M
Tunnel wall Cf at
x = 1.2954 m.
3
Cf
y
0 < y < 0.08 m
Wing Cf at
x = 0.6858 m.
4
Cf
y
0 < y < 0.08 m
Wing Cf at
x
y
U/Ue
0 < y < 0.05 m
x - 0.6443 m, z ý 0.005025, 0.01003, 0.02337, 0.04338 m.
y
V/Ue
0 < y ( 0.05 m
x = 0.6443 m, z
S5
6
0.01003, W/Ue
7
y
8
y
-_uvU2
9
y
-2 -vw/U
e
1.2954 m.
0.02337,
-
0.005045, 0.04338 m.
0 < y e 0.05 m
x = 0.6443 m, z = 0.005025, 0.01003, 0.02337, 0.04338 m.
0 < y < 0.05 ru
x = C.6443 m,
0 < y < 0.05 a
x
0.01003, =
z = 0.005025,
0.02337,
0.04338 m.
0.6443 u), z = 0.005025, 0.02337, 0.04338 an.
0.01003, 10
y
U/Ue
0 < y < 0.05 m
0.-305025, x = 1.254 m, z 0.01003, 0.02337, 0.04338 a.
11
y
V/Ue
0 < y < 0.05 a
x = 1.254 m, z = 0.005025, 0.01003, 0.02337, 0.04338 a.
y
W/Ue
0 < y < 0.05 m
x = 1.254 m, r = 0.005025, 0.01003, 0.02337, 0.04338 m.
S12
ii14"
".
Comments
Abscissa
Range/Position
y
-2 -uv/U e
0 < y < 0.05 m
x - 1.254 m, z - 0.005025, 0.01003, 0.02337, 0.04338 m.
y
2
0 < y < 0.05 m
x - 1.254 m, z - 0.005025, 0.01003, 0.02337, 0.04338 m.
Plot
Ordinate
13
14
Special Instructions: It
is
low,
which
part
of
suggested is
the
that calculations
sufficiently wing.
Table
should be started at Station 2 of Table 1 be-
tar downstream of 1 gives
positions
the
recording data from static pressure taps, and cross-wires. line, but edge and
It
iq noted
the
in a
of all
pitot tubes,
that the wing is
the asymmetric effects
leading edge
offset
on the parallel-sided
meaurement
Preston tubes,
planes
used for
single hot wires
by 2" trom the tunnel center-
30"-wide tunnel will be small near the leading
insignificant farther downstream at Station 2.
This allows a one-dir0ensional
treatment of the pressure field outside the shear layer in two possible ways: is
outside the shear
layer
at
a
Use the measured p(x), given cross-section.
2.
Calculate p(x) one-dimensionally by treating half the tunnel crosa-section as a 0-,ct. The skew-induced secondary flow on the plane walls of the two-dimensional contraction is unlikely to cause any significant disturbance to the boundary It would therefore be sufficient to assume that layer on the 5"-high sidewalls. the displacement thickness everywhere on the tunnel walls is equal to that measured on the tunnel floor at the maximum distance from the wing.
Station No.
which
assumed constant
i.
Table 1 Axial Positions of McasurcmcnL Stations (Distances ate measured in mm relative to the wing leading edge) Cross-wire Single-wire Disc center (X-wire) (U-wire) Preston-tube Pitot-tube and staticmeasurement measurement measurement pressure measurement planes planes planes planes tappings
-9 -8 -7 -6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
-1,295.4 -1,143.0 -990.6 -838.2 -685.8 -533.4 -381.0 -228.6 -76.2 76.2 228.6 381.0 533.4 685.8 838.2 990.6 1,143.0 1,295.4
-1,043.6
34.66 187.06 339.46 491.86 644.26
-738.8 -586.0 -434.0 -281.6 -129.2 23.2 175.6 328.0 480.4 632.8
949.06
937.6
1,253.86
1,242.4
-137.2 15.2 167.6 320.0 624.8
156.6
613.8
929.6 1,234.3
1,223.4
147
h
...
-"
- -
PLOT 1 CASE 0511 FILE 61 0.004
0
(1
0
0.002
00o)
0
0.000 00.02
0.04; z
(mn)
PLOT 2CASE 0.511 FILE G33 0.004
0 C
G
00
-
c.0000.02
z (ro)
. 29 54
PLOT 3 CASE 0511 FILE 61 0.004
C'
C
0.002
D.6858 a
0.000 0
0.04
0. 02
0.06
PLOT 4 CASEE 0511 FILE 63 0.004
0.000
0
0.02
)01 y
(Mn)
149
PLOT5 FL-TECAE 9094.9.12 011
0.015 t-:0J
0.010
7-T
o
i
0
0.10
0.0 52
0.000
1
0.23
.4
3
I
---
x
u
-0,6443m
PLOT 6 CASE 0511 FILES 90,94,98, 105 0.015kT-.
C5
C
o
.ý
0! 3
0.000
----
0
-0.5
0
-0.5 V'U* (xlO)
150
0
-0. 5 x
C 0.4-
A!
I
'i
.1
PLOT 7 CASE 0511 FILES 90.94.98.106 0.015 o-o-
0-010
...
-
0
0.
5 ,
I
-
0.005025 a
I
--
L
,
c
I-
'
10) ,
':0
:
--
L
a
-
00500.
I
0.5
-
-
0.. 5
0
0
--
-
0.1
-
0
D'
5'' 1
:iI
"%-
So -.
..
Ki
;"0.015
=.
0.6443 m
x-
PLOT 8 CASE 0511 FILES 90,94,98,106
•.:'.y
I
1
0.04338
0,02337
0.0100
""W/
--•€-,0.010
0
0
.
0
v
Sz
0.010 0.015
I:
T
~
-,
-,
-
=o-
005+
0
-
I
.1
-4
1511
•,.-...
:
. . .... ..- . . . 0.005.-0+0.,
.... ..
,
]
2
x
*
0.6443 rn.
1. 1
i.
. . .. ..-. .-.-.- . : .22:2 :: 2: .::: :.: .....:----.. -... . ...,-.
::2 : . : :
- :.:: . 2. : -: .. : - .:
. :: :2 ::151.
....
PLOT 9 CASE 0511 FILES 90,94,98,106
0.015 FT-,, i
' Si
0.010
C
oCo o I 0.010
-
L C'
-
0
'
0.005025
0
0.01003
0.001 0
0
T
'-
0
C
,0C
O C
0.02337
0.04338
0.001 0 -v- ."'L
1,001
0
0.001 - 0.6443 m
PLOT 10 CASE 0511 FILES 114.118,122,130 0.015o
.::
C
C
I
I
,
10
0.00
0C
C
05 -
-
-
-
-
0.000'
-
'
0.
0.
1
05 .I
05
,
.'-.,I.
~'
x 10)
152
,.-,
X -1.254
..-
m
I:PLOT
11 CASE 0511 FILES 1141,116,122,130
V=0
T
00
0
0.010
1-.
0.005
F
0
0
j
I
0000
I
.00000
-0.5
0
0.052
0.10
-0.5
I
~T1
0.23
0
-0.5
0.43
0 -0.5 (x10)
V/ U
0 -1.254
PLOT 12 CASE 0-511 FILES 114,118.122,130 0.015-
0
.0
0.1010
0.0105
O. )
~
----
0
0
.--
.052
05
0005.25
0
0
-
0 ,033
.000
05
0
0
j
0.4,3
0.
0
0
w/I3* (x10)
153
-1.4a
0.
PLOT 13 CASE 0511 FILES 114,113,122,130 0.015
F
-
0
-l
00
S.1 0 0
C
•
0.010
--
,--
'"•0
0
0
0
i
0"
0
1
i0
1
67,7
0
01.
-
1
C
254
PLOT 14 CASE 0511 FILES :14.118,122,130 0.010
I :°
00
•
-
-,,,,
0-,
•
00
.00
0~0010,
10i
0
£ -0.0525
.000
o
--
0
0" 3
.
154
001
0
QOl
154
t,-
'
:_
0.23
0
-v-: _ /U.2
IIII
o0
0
0
0.0
0
x-
01
1.254
=
-0-
..-
SPECIFTCATI0NS FO0R COMPUTATION ENTRY CASE/INC0MPRESSIBLE Case #0512;
Data Taker:
J. A. C. Humphrey
FICTIOIM. VlOe
0S1O. DOt. *.aklu1or-
Ce~ -Test
or
all Cwmeet-y
C,
C&. 051
Do...
1.
MOe
bet. Toter
R. B. Dean
Data Evaluator:
DOLAWRT
'%rh.Lant
I
Seconder,
uIuo
Fit..
of the
tlrot so.
rt o.l-
orU
IdZ
us
Ur
otl'r 0,2 .2no
1
a.
Otbot
ti0
N1ots
2 2~',.1rd
b~n4
Ot.rtd
1. 4oot
t
4.2 4"
o9dP.l
at..
lTS 7j
o.
1.0. 2YD
ZD
0 < YD < 1
Contours of U8/Ureft
-1.0 < ZD < 0
F3
YD
ZD
Contour values 1.28, 1.20,
0 1
El
Ele
LL
CM
Ga~~~U
to
m
C
8.
~ 'HII ~ ~NXV 91-1 3Y 170
ts
D
-4D
.
DI SCUSSION Flow 0310 I.. The major point to emerge from the discussion, vin,
was
that
"example, noted ary
R.
layers and
computors
influence
Luxton
that a
marks,
the
pointed
simple
of out
initial that
conditions sound
distinction between
is
not
sufficient.
S.
it
was
,;ecided
the
to warrant
a
that
was
affected
"laminar"
Birch
at
flow,
agreed
For
clenr.
and
I.
Wygnanskt
initial
with
sufficient
(see Ad-Hoc
by M. Mocko-
all
and "turbulent"
was of
discussion
not
the
essentially
problem
tw-re extended
which was initiated
bound-
all
these
importance
Committee
re-
to the
report
No.
3). 2.
There
were
two
later
during
winor
the
points or
day,
query from W. Reynolds, boundary
"1
layer
in elliptic
(in
raised
at
S.
the
evening
Birch confirmed
a single-stream
calculations
mathematics may rn.•
be,
which
thic
of
mixing flow
were
clarified
committee that
whilst
0 was P.
the
floor
meeting.
his
layer).
in
in
that of
Saffman
physics
are
discussion,
response
to
a
the separating
pointed out
that
posed,
well
the
unless the outlet boundary conditions are properly speci-
fied. 3.
Finally, width,
S.
Birch disagreed with I.
which
the latter
W-gnanski over his definition of mixing-layer
felt concealed much of the scatter in
the published data.
After the 1980 meeting the following comments were received from A. Hussain: A.
Asymptotic it
mixing layer:
conclusively
Only in
demonstrated
the expeciment
of
Hussain and Kleis
(1980)
that a universal plane mixing layer does exist,
is both
with laminar and fully developed turbulent exit boundary layers. B.
Region 1000
of
0,
self-preservation:
the value
evaluator. .
0.11.
In
initial
of R0 ,
dL/dx
is
found
to exceed
mixing
boundary
layer
it
was
is
0.115,
the value of dL/dx obtained
an axisymmetric
"initially laminar the
of
However,
Since self-preservation
the value
by Hussain
found
that
layer and 0.139 for an initially
boundary layer was laminar,
only
attained
x >
suggested by the
and Kleis
(1980)
dL/dx - 0.116 turbulent
the shear-layer evolution was
but noticeably dependent on the initial
at
was
for an
flow.
When
independent
fluctuation level and its
spectral
content.
.c C.
Dependence the
on the end-plate:
single-3tream
free mixing
It
has been found by Husain and Hussain
layer
is
independent
of
the presence
(1979)
that
or otherwise
of an end-plate. D.
Initial namely
shear-stress U(y),
to Lhe finite
u
2
(y),
measurement: and
@u"
The inltt..
Measurements
of
lateral extent of hot-wire or LDV
conditions that are meaningftl are v2
and UT1 present difficulties
due
instrumentation.
174
.
..
I
E.
ubln
nicopesbefe
odtos
inta
Rl
of
flo
are a unique function of the ini'_ial conditions.
flows it has been The3e are classified as
turbulent. F.
Aaiý,)priate produced
tripa:
In most previous experimental studies trip wires have rarely turbulent
ftilly developed
flow at exit.
is
Experience of this author
that effective trips should be piaced 100 6 upstream of lip, have a height equal to
the
displacement
thickness,
spanwise notches spaced a displacement
ar~d have
thickness apart. G.
Initial tant
fluctu~tion:
because of its
layer.
influence on the
instability of an initially laminar shear
An initially fully turbulent boundazy layer has strong fluctuations and
is uninfluenced -
The spectral content of the initial fluctuations is impor-
by the
typical low-level
free-stream fluctuations.
However,
a
fully turbulent shear layer may itself become unstable and roll, up further down-
.
stream (Clark and Hussain, 1979).
=
H.
Any invasive measurementn of the initial shear layer
Distortion by
shear tone:
almost always
induce a shear tone
(Hussain~ and Zaman, 1978), and this leads
misleading data on initial conditiona.
[Ed.:
This is a summary of much longer
discussion notes submitted by Dr. A. 'C.M. F. Hussain. are
important with
respect
to
data on mixing
Although these comments
layers it is not considered
require the specification for Case 0311 to be modified.]
175
...................................................
to
.7
they
SPECIFICATIONS FOR COMPUTATION ENTRY CASE/INCOMPRESSIBLE Case 00311; Data Taker:
Data Evaluator: Four sets;
S. Birch
see specification
PICTORIAL SL49WY Plow aPRagar 0)0. Ortd inateter: oito S.bitsh.
r
I
Pat.Uke Cý
,
i II
t
.1e . 1~o -t
Wt
W
Cynr.s
Other ton•
h,
*otas
0311
Cas
ilnltiol developeent
Wta embll4 ff"
_
_
_
i
_
L
_
I
_____
x/i
of then
O<x/ei < at
For single-stream mixing layer, continue to fully developed condition, but at least x/0i = 2000.
1 ist 2000
Special Instruction: 1.
0i - momentum thickness at separation point.
2.
Take Re
3.
Report asymptotic spreading rate dL/dx found for Plot I as a number.
4.
Experimental data
as 1210.
component initial
of
the
station.
(Husain and Hus3aln, turbulence Other
are
1979)
p:ovided
quantities
needed
for the mean velocity and the axial for to
obtained by assuoing that the boundary layer is
the start
wall
boundary
the
layer
calculation
fully developed.
at
should
the be
All quantities
used to start the calculation should be reported. Special Symbols L
width for a mixing layer between the point at which
U
-
U2
is
A. I(U 1 - U2 )
and 4.9(U1 - U2 ) high-speed ide of a mixing layer; the on U- value of U U2 - value of U on the lhw-speed side of a mixing layer; x - downstream distance; y -
cross-stream distance; U - U A- 1 2, U + U 1 27176
-_V6
4
PLOT 1 CASE 0311 FILES 3,4,5,6 200L
150
[
FOSS
0
GARTSHORE
0
L/e
1
j
c>
D
HUSSAIN 1
-
HUSSAIN 2 0I
100
50
0 I
X/
177
I
TWO-DIMENSIONAL CHANNEL FLOW WITH PERIODIC PERTURBATIONS Flow 0150
Cases 0151,
0152
M. Acharya*
Evaluator:
SUMMARY
fully
and
or axisymmetric)
(planar
be two-dimensional
flow should
turbulent
The
1.
the selection of test cases:
were used in
The following criteria
developed. 2.
The imposed periodic disturbance should not cause
3.
Measurements
of
4
as well as amplitude-
phase-
include
should
quantities
periodic
flow separation.
information. stress field are desirable.
ments of the perturbation
4.
Measui
5.
Data should
and enough infor-
of accuracy and repeatability,
satisfy requirements
'-I
mation snould be available to serve as a basis for computations. the following two cases were selected.
Based on the foregoing,
4ussain-Reynolds Experiment (1970).
Case 0151. The
plane
Nearly
and
techniques
were
Most of half-width
Hz.
The
to
used
measure
ý
were
at
different for
documented
perturbation
introduced additional periodic velociinstrumentation
Hot-wire the
mean,
and
fluctuating,
and
conditional compo-
periodic
for a Reynolds number
four
transverse
the
the
frequencies,
oscillation and
in
locations
streamwise
stresses
Reynolds
of 13,800,
based on channel per-
The amplitudes and phases of the streamwise
centerline velocity.
velocity
disturbances
turbulent
the data were obtained
and
These
fluw.
test section with the help
the
in
velocity.
nents of the streamwise
turbation
which fully
in
air channel
high-aspect-ratio
a
driven ribbons. the
in
pressure
sampling
in
were introduced
wave disturbances
electromagnetically
ties
conducted
two-dimensional turbulent flow could be obtained.
developed
of
were
experiments
flow 25,
symmetric
for 75,
50,
perturbation
and
100
velocity
v
were not measured. The and
data
show
that
the
perturbation
decay almost exponentially
in
velocities
the streamwise
are
direction.
and wave length decreases with increasing frequency.
Brown,
Boveri Ltd.,
CH-5405 Baden-Datwil,
Switzerland. 178
small The
compared
to
the
mean,
decay rate increases
6.
Acharya--Reynolds Experiment (1975).
Case 0152. The
were
experiments
Reynolds,
conducted
in
same
flow channel
used
periodic
oscillations
in
the
produce controlled
to
modified
The perturbation velocity had a slug-flow character, developing
with a Stokes layer
instrumentation
hot-wire
Reynolds,
also obtained
perturbation
flow,
the case of Hussain and
in
were uned to
techniques
sampling
a Reynolds number of 13,800
for
In
These data
based on channel half-width and
The amplitudes and phases of the perturbation velocities and the
centerline velocity. Reynolds
stresses
oscillation frequency of 24 Hz, Hz.
As
the mean and perturbation Reynolds stresses were also measured.
addition,
section.
ccnctant over most of the
the wall regions. and conditicnal
test
and periodic components of the streamwise velocity.
fluctuating,
measure the mean,
were
in
and
by Hussain
the
were
two
for
measured
at
amplitudes
oscillation
an
amplitude at 40
and for one (the higher) oscillation
Only data for the higher oscillation amplitude are reported here. The
uncertainty estimates
quantities
other
than
the
gave
on
5% on magnitude and 40
perturbation
Reynolds
strebses,
phase for moot 10% and
which were
flow 150,
respectively. There
Other comments: flows;
is
a lack of data of this kind It
more experiments would be welcome.
is
for unsteady
turbulent
recommended that future measurements
also include data on higher harmonics. REFERENCES "Measurements and predictions of a fully and W. C. Reynolds (1975). Acharya, M., developed turbulent channel flow with imposed controlled oscillations," Tech. Rept. TF-8, Thermosciences Div., Dept. of Mech. Eng., Stenford University. Hussain, A. K. M. F., and W. C. Reynolds wave in turbulent shear flow," Tech. Mech. Eng., Stanford University.
..
.
•
*
-
"-i~ - .. '.- -'-.' -.
"The mechanics of a perturbation (1970). Rept. FM-6, Thermosciences Div., Dept. of
- .' ': -. .- '.
.-
"-
"
-
..-.-
_
179
" .'- - " - .S . ' .:
--.
- .
-. "--.. -- -. - .
".
2
-
-.
-. .
.-..i
- ' '
'-
DISCUSSION Flow 0150 The discussfua
of
this
flow was
flavored
by the fact that the general
unsteady flows will be discussed in Session XII by L.
Carr.-
In response to queries ty A. Smlts and A. Perry, the two experiments evaluated the only significant waveforms was the turbulence and is
topic of
W. Rey,.olds pointed out that in
source of "Jitter" on the velocity
therefore part of the problem to be solved by the
predictors. There was some discussion concerning the presence of higher harmonics in the data which resulted in a final consensus that these were not important, low amplitude compares view of the
latcer
either using a full, linearized equations
to the
fact,
it
fundamental,
which was
since they were of
itself of small amplitude.
In
was also agreed that compucors would have the option of
time-dependent
method or a method based on the small-amplitude,
for the ensemble-averaged
results.
Several discussers mentioned other flows that should have been considered in this class.
For example,
B. Ramaprian mentioned his own high-amplitude perturbations of a
pipe flow and two other similar experiments. feeling was that
sideration as test cases, the
data
and,
In the evening discussion,
the general
the evaluated cases are important enough to be recommended
second,
a
for con-
but first an independent evaluator should be asked to review third
test
case
of
the
should be evaluated and included as a test case if
high-amplitude,
pipe-flow
variety
possible.
B. Ramaprian expressed the opinion that the recommended data sets were not suitable as test cases because the modulation amplitude (1% and 4% of mean :low speed) was too
small
ness.
to enable
This
most predictive
opinion was
not
schemes
unanimously
to distinguish the effects
held by all
people
present
at
of unsteadithe evening
discussion.
(Ed.: The participants at this conference concluded that Flow 0150 should be dithdrawn as a test case for 1981 since there are acvantages in treating unsteady flows as a separate class from the majority of steidy flows treated in the 1981 Conference. This
recommendation
has
been
carried
out.
Library.] 180
However,
the
data
remain
in
the
Data
.i
SESSI0I! IV
Chairman: W. C. Reynolds (for W. M. Kays)
Technical Re~corders: A. Cutler A. K. M. F. Hussain
Flow
QUO0
Flow 0130 Numerical Ch~ecks
G. Hellor F. Gessner
181
CORNER FLOW (SECONDARY
ILOW OF THE SECOND KIND)
Flow 0110 Cases 0111, 0112 Evaluator:
F.
B.
Gessner
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION This
report
summarizes
along a streamwise stress gradients all,
the
corner in
acting in
results
of
a
which secondary
data
flows are
the corner region
1979) ity
The
in
results of
flow
by virtue of Reynolds-
flow of the
second kind).
this nurvey are presented
in
a preliminary report
predictions.
The data sets considered
in
In
(Gessner,
Turbulent flow in
constant-area rectangular ducts
2.
Turbulent flow in
other constant-area,
3.
Transitional
4.
Zero- and variable-pressure (interior)
gradient
turbulent
corner
flows
5.
Zeroand variable-pressure (exterior)
gradient
turbulent
corner
flows
6.
Turbulent corner flows with heat transfer.
Categories
1. 2,
purposes,
marginally
recommended
and
while
attention
rectangular
constant-area,
6,
several
those
acceptable.
that
constant-area
flow in
in
In be
data
the
confined
ducts)
summary shall concentrate
for
the
non-circular ducts
sets
the to
sur-
non-circular ducts
other
reviewing
that
namely:
I.
comparison
this
turbulent
and approximately seventy of these were
vey were categorized within six major categories,
only
to
which various data sets are rated with respect to both accuracy and suitabil-
for comparison with numerical
In
related
induced
(secondary
over ninety sources of data were located,
surveyed.
survey
were
rated as
categories report,
data
the
sets
purposes
of
were
either
Organizing
within
this
being
suitable
for
unsuitable
or
Committee
Category
conference.
on data sets which have been selected
1
(flow
has in
Accordingly,
for inclusion
in
the final report.
SELECTED DATA SETS Ten part or
data in
sets
total)
developed
flow
Brundrett
(1963);
*Mech.
Engr.
in
in
Category
I
on
smooth-wall
for comparison with numerical a
smooth-walled,
and
Dept.,
Launder
and
square Ying
are
results.
duct:
(1971).
University of Washington,
ducts
Hoagland
regarded
WA
suitable
Four of
these concern
(1960);
Leutheusser
Six concern
Seattle,
as
developing
(in
fully
(1961);
flow in
the
98195.
"182
•ik .''..''.-
.'
.
-..-
-
-
..- "
.
.
. . .-
-
. -
.
--. -
- -. .
...
.~-. - L----
- -.
--.- .. :
-.
.-
-.
.. i
-
S
.,
•.
-.
,..
.
-.
•.
.
. .. .
.,
o.
.-
same
geometric
J
configuration:
the moot comprehensive number
to
minimize
encompass
set
mean
flow
is
It
was
that
local
the
levels
flow
those
reported
and
Emery
(1979).
In
in
Po
All
given test (for
in
(1975),
desirable r 3ion;
that
the
the
data
shear-layer-
and at a location where
should
terms of primary-
et al.
also
provide
a
fairly
and secondary-flow velocity
symmetric about
Lund
(1977),
results
are
corner and wall bisectors
data
sets
which meet
and Gessner
based
et al.
these
(1979),
on measurements
in
for all criteria
and Gessner
the
same
experi-
x 10 5. each
4
the potential core of a free jet before and after measurements
I
in
measurements
order
data-reduction
the purpose of
data
only available
hot-wire
3tation
the tangential
in
cooling factur in
four
each set
for that
studies,
also calibrated
of measurements
particular wire (again,
the duct).
I
value of the mean bridge
wire probe was
before and after
data taken
these
the intercept
Each inclined
pipe-flow
reducing hot-wire
reported
to determine
purposes).
turbulent
order to determine
considered
The
Gessner
predictions with
distributions, and Reynolds-stress distributions. that inlet flow conditions should be well posed and
The
these
the
fully developed,
(1977);
flow ýat a given Reynolds
near-entrance
at a bulk Reynolds number of 2.5
performing
voltage
the flow in
esqential
by
was
the
developed.
be relatively
probe was calibrated at a
of
development.
are
mental facility
fully
wall-shear-stress
flow should
of
Lund
for square-duct
it
zones:
(1975);
to compare numerical
thL wall boundary layers have merged;
nominally
also considered
Po
order
costs),
three
complete characterization profiles,
In
of data available
in
region after
(1975);
(1979).
computational
measurements
interaction the
Melling
and Gessner and Emery
(1979);
Details
in for
of the calibration
procedures are described by Po (1975). The consistency of the Reynolds stress measurements was investigated by comparing distributioas of u2, v 2 , w 2 , and -UV measured by
various
investigators
along
the
corner
and
wall
along the plane
of symmetry of high-aspect-ratio
obtained
(1975)
(1974)
by
at
exhibit check,
both
other
a
may
et al.
the
consistent
Reynolds
numbers
decrease
refer
to
(1979)
which provide
the
the
by Po.
profiles
measurements
by
Lund
careful
an
increase
or
more
by
Gessner
data
± 0.050
by this
are
sets
for
confirmation
of
each
J1979)
each
profile)
(1975)
and
J
of
and Dean
As
a
further
balances
reported
by
the overall
accuracy
of
gradiant)
I
stress component
number.
data selected
Emery
duct
and
Reynolds-st
-ss
for comparison purposes
which
are
using
a
based
on
multiple
relatively
accurate
(Flow angles in low-intensity flows can be determined
technique).
considered
calibration
and
square
by Melling
Reynolds
(mean-velocity
a
was found that the results
values
in
of
transport-equation
indirect
profile
It
reported
normalized
The secondary-flow-velocity reported
(two
(1977)
that
dacts.
those
Reynolds-stress
single-wire rotation technique. to within
with
in
with
primary-flow-velocity
measurements are
are
consistent
one
Gessner
Po
bisectors
to
and measurement
be
The
local wall-shear-stress
suitable
for
comparison
techniques employed.
measurements
purpoocs
(Measurementp
because
of
nia-le the
were made with
183
h
- ...
.k.
-,".., .. ..
... .
..
..
.
..
",*
.-
-,,..
4.
.;
..
.
.
.
.
..........
;
:
.
".
-,4
thr~e different-diameter in
fully
and
developed
turbulent
more recent data
described observed
near-wall
flow).
The
obtained by Eppich
The above duct.
more fully,
0110).
(1980) order
data
data reported
the
by Lund
to provide additional summarized
based
on
calibrated
same calibration
the
in
the
(1977)
techniques
information on
"Specification
results
and Gessner and Emery (1979)
selected
data
In
to explore
order
wall
Hinze (1973)
constitute
wall
selectively
have
provided
are
all
the
also be
based
of
Po
(1975),
are presented in
predictive
data
set
the fully developed
roughened.
More recent data
measurements
by
wall-roughness
on measurements
considered.
an acceptabi:
additional
data
sets
capabilities
Committec has recommended that
conditions
surements were made in
turbulence
in
using
the probes were
for Lund
the final
1980).
smooth-rough
different
near-wall
results are
Tabulated
the Organizing
The
These
et al. (1979),
report (Gessner,
walls.
pipe
behavior.
(Flow
Gesener
square
tubes at etch point after
above have also been analyzed
Comp'.•tations" (1977),
Preston
on
flow
Fujita
are included,
flow in
in
square
which
a particular
purpose.
ducts
with
flow
smooth, limits
smooth-walled,
in
three
duct with one
and Humphrey
duct
rough,
the comparisons
(1977)
roughened
square
walls
by
that study mea-
artificially a
code
data generated In
a 5:1 aspect-ratio
primary
wall
a
a duct with combined
studies by Fujita (1978)
(one
however,
of
experimental
for this
region of
include
conditions
The
in
with
six
etc.).
No
that can be made
with this data set. The data of tions
in
Humphrey
the entrance
(1977)
m of equally spaced, however, ingly complex, state-of-the-art. relatively
markedly
given
streamwj.se
vary in
the
from
that
stitute
because
flow
in
location,
the
the
a
it
reasonably
in
selection
tency ments. about
in
of
this
data
particular
the measurements Lines
of constant
the midplane and,
lent shear-stress
and
at
a
in
above
for
data
set
is
that
axial mean velocity
in
the
Furthermore,
ribs at
a
law-of-the-wall must behavior
Gessner (1980). data of
Hinze (1973)
con-
combined
JusLified was in
of symmetry,
plane of
also on
exercised
in
performing
occasions are in
"
.
.
consis-
the experisymmetric and turbu-
good agreement.
symmetry appear to be accurate,
". "
of
are
transverse mean-velocity
184
S.-
the basis
the duct cross-section
profiles measured on three separate
The dissipation-rate
adjacent
velocity-profile
that only the a
the
exceedpresent
the duct width is
between
rib.
in
near-wall
to
by
smooth-rough wall duct flow based on currently available turbulence models.
care
on the plane
either
which appear
to note
data
the
relative
more detail in
set
distribu-
selectively roughened
cross-section
order to model
which can be compared with predictions The
rib height
cross-section
will suffice
complete
the
coefficients
direction
with one wall
This particular flow situation is amenable to analysis within the
structure
These points are discussed
For the present,
duct
transverse ribs. and not believed
local
the spanwise
properly.
a square
For example,
large,
varies
include both mean-flow and Reynolds-stress
region of
inasmuch as
profiles based
on assumed
tion.
The
overall
stant
axial
mean
{eynoldG-streas, are
erployed
available
in
isotropy at three dJfferent levels follow a common distribuare available for this test case include lines of convelocity in the duct cross-section, and complete mean-velocity, data which
and
in
dissipation-rate
the
"Specification8
Cessner
data
in
the
plane
for Comnutations,
of
symmetry.
Case 0112."
These
Tabulated
results data
are
(1980).*
ADVICE FOR FUTURE DATA TAKERS The
afore-mentioned
developing
turbulent
duct with
selectively
a
relatively
the probe ments in are
short,
in
flow in
slant-wire
order to prescribe This set
the over-all hot-wire shear-stress a further 2
data
check
÷
a
square
probe
duct and In
acquiring
(200
measurements
in
0
to
-,U7,
centerline
are
for
form of
differed
of
that
The pressure
a
by
> 0
whicV,
dp/dx >
0
and
The
than
were
of
pressure
well The
used
flexible-roof
The
flow has
separation
two-dimensional
integral 14Z.
a
few
and
the centerltne. pitot-tube
are well
days.
Hot-wire
measurements The
documeuited
obtained
of
the
side of
the
changes,
/dx
in
spectral
bat
U.
The
behave
results
balance
good
and
agreement
taps on the tunnel
and
not
measurements
floating
special
p
v-,rlocity
Pre for
with very
from a
Fluctuntions
obtained by differentiation of a smoothed dC
nature
off-centerline
surface-skin-'riction
temperature
strong
equation differed no more
The
documented.
was
p
a
the end of
traverse on either
coefficient Cp was obtained from static dC /dx
at
tunnel
term and t.,e summed momentum and pros-
those on
are
a
of
approaching
present.
less
from
few hours;
peri-d
for
is
be
the momentum
Klebanoff.
techniques
during
to
region
distribution.
The skin-friction
and techniques
during a
corrected
pressure
u spectra are presented;
data
among results.
2.5-m long
appears
indistinguishable
the
Preston-tube
it
a
by momentum balance and velocity
integrated
equipment
similar
that
commonly
, w-,
in
etreamwise
centerline.
the
were 2
hot-wire
probe
(1974).
several reasons.
but no separation
flow field was checked
of
Joubert
performed
finely
the wotking
2
for
good
practical
N.
< 0.
This with
E.
o
pressu-e-gradient were
small;
p
was
2
humidity;
d C /dx
was
curve.
p rases 0142 and 0143.
R.
Pozzorini (1976).
These measurements were made on a 6"-included-angle conical diffuser with an area ratio
of
4.
They
date according pressure applied the
probes, to
ar-
to A.
and a
shearing
stress.
are:
very
asymmetry and three
extends
well
diffuser
hot-wire
the three
determined by a
control
avoidance
of
entrance
exit),
anemometer.
which included
careful
to
thorough
diffuser
Shear
data and corrections
Cf was
different
the most
experiments
conducted
Mean velocities were measured with pitot tubes,
the pitot-static
hot-wire data,
a
probably
Klein.
of
errors
diffuser
(c)
thick
(the
Preston tube. conditions
resulting
from it.
exit),
thicknesses:
(b)
turbulence
Reynolds normal
entrance
boundzry-layer
the
and
medium
potential
core
(the is
stresses
a
and the
special
thin
potential
absent
(the ccre
over
most
P
PD
Reynolds
these data
search
Experiments were (a)
were
were applied to
Special merits of and
static-
corrections
for large turbulence
to
of
conducted potential
vanishes of
the
at
flow for core the
diffuser
length). The
low-core
should be developed,
turbulence
flow with
!,/DE -
4.5
and
-
100 mm of water
used for Case 2 since the boundary layer at the beginning of the diffuser is but still
thin,
and the poteutial core extends to Lhe difFuser
exit.
254
.
' -- - ".-.-
".•
,
. .
.
--.
, ".*.*--.
.
........... •,. ,-..........-
-..
.
. .
.*
,
..
.-
*
-
*
-
,
..
.1
• .*
"/,
.
-
K
SLE/DF_
4.5._
Case 0142. The
high-cor2
PK "PD
Pozzorini low-core turbulence flow.
turbulence
flow
(Pozzorini
Case
3)
25 mm of water should be used as Case 0143,
%ith
LBC/DE
-
7.25
and
which shows mar'ked influence of
-r-eetream turbulence.
PK
SPD
,Pd
-
PEZ
=.";#.
.
r
'M
I
LCase 0143. Case 0431.
R. L. Simpson,
Pozzorini high-core turbulence flow.
Y.-T. Chew,
B. G. Shivaprasad (1980).
This experiment was performed on the flat wooden bottom wall of a constart-width, variable-height,
converging-diverging
quantities
obtained
were
separation.
Complete
region where -tream cart
for
an
channel,
incompressible
pressure-gradient
backflow near
4.9 m long.
relief
turbulent was
not
the wall occurred all of the
Mean-flow and fluctuattnn boundary achieved time.
layer in
the
undergoing downstream
The streamwise
free-
velocity distribition was obtained with the normal hot-wire probe mounted on a that was transversed
streamwiae location, differentiatcd tion control
in
of
direcLion.
a quadratic least-squares
and evaluated the side-
two-dimensionality.
the streawwise
The
at that
location.
and top-wall skin-friction
To obtain dU /dx at a given e fit to upstream and downstream data was Active
suction and tangential
-gve
injec-
boundary layers was used to promote mean-flow terms
and the summed momentun,
pressure,
and
normal stresses terms of the integrated form of the momentum integral equation differed no more than 20%, and differed lesa than 16% over 80% of the length upstream of separation. In
The nor,•-al
regions without
stresses term was important after the beginning of separation. intermittent backflow, the flow field was surveyed %,iLh hot-wire 255
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
anemometers
stream,
v 2, tu-v,skewness,
for U, u,
and
fraction
uncertainties
flatness.
of time flow away from
the wall were obtained wtthtli
in regions where both techniques
stream end of
the separatcd
Fraction of time flow moves down-
are valid.
flow are available
estimated
Measurements at the down-
as boundary conditions
on
the flow.
w7 measurements will be available in another Project SQUID report later in 1980. ADVICE FOR FUTURE DATA-TAKERS
"Diffuser years,
with
flows
most
dimensionality, pro.ached,
Joubert
data
and
sets
insufficient
without being
uncertainty
gradient over velocity
with
in
documentation
of
and
instrumentation
are
deficiencies
The and
technology
is
of
measurements
for
of
as the
a
number
Mean-Eflow
streamwise
deficiencies.
of
three-
separation
the use of directionally
the common
better
studied
shortco-iing.
repeatability
is
ap-
pressure
insensitive
The
Samuel
and
as humanly possible for a flow without
now available
make acquisition
been
some
tbe experiments,
flow is as free of these deficiencies
separation.
have
with
Zhe skin-friction
the duration of
measurement
separation
tainted
to
overco:nL
data more
the
routine.
previous
measti-ement
Computers
can
used
bn
to eliminate the drudgery and exasperation that are encountered when a large amount of careful data are needed. Directionally ments whenever
sensitive laser anemometers
any backflow or large
should be used
spanwise
turbulence
is
for velocity measurepresent.
There
is
no
reliable way to calibrate or correct the directionally insensitive hot-wire for these effects (Simpson, 1976). It is a waste of effort to obtain hot-wire data in the presence
of backflow.
"anemometer with
these
future
data
The currently
invalid
"instantaneous flow Unfortunately By
the
their
studies,
tinct
need
"laser anemometry
such hot-wire
data.
often Such
tempt
data
and the
computors
comparisons
with hot-wire anemometers
lead
sparse amount
to
compare
to
more
of laser
their
results
confusion.
All
in the presence of a widely charging
direction should be totally rejected. laser
anemometry
time most
graduate
having produced
for
of
available
hot-wire
data obtained
master.
existence
future
is
expensive
students
to
become
use and competent
requires to use
only a small amount of useful data.
diffuser
research
some
it,
time to
they
finish
There is
the dis-
to be conducted by organizations
that use
professionally with long-term personnel.
The Rubesin et al.
(1975)
rior surface-heat-transfer
surface hot wire on a polystyrene substrate is a supe-
skin-friction gage to anything else.
It can•
be calibrated
in laminar flow and used in turbulent flow with and witho'ut pressure gradients. easy to manufacture and use,
It
is
so inexperienced graduate students who do nearly all such
experiments can use this device successfully. Mean-flow to
some
degree.
thcee-dimensionality The
size
of
the
plagui
s all separaiting turbulent
large-s. ale
256
turbulent
structurep
boundary ,omes
a
layers si.-.able
fraction
of
the
separation, iiifluenced ments
in
It
clear
is
spanwise
so no by
the side walls
that the
peripheral Huwever,
large-scale
obtained after
structures
geometry.
three-dimensional
nature
A of
flow
channel
mean flow is probable.
at
some
location
Several investigators
variation
in
downstream
of
possible--a cellular structure strongly
eliminate this problem, the
believe
but this is
that
experi-
not entirely true.
flow may be nearly
eliminated
in
an
at some titreamwise location the radial and peripheral
important
that
the
throughout
do
not
cellular
interact
with
structui.,
set.rated diffuser
the data-gathering
The pressu -- gradieiit
documented
the
of the large-scale turbulent structures approach the radius of the Then the flow structure is influenced by the geometrical constraints.
i.wo-dimensional
is
is
diffusers
axisymmetric diffuser.
Adjacent
of
two-dimensional
axisymmetric
dimensions diffuser.
width
one
another
may also
flows are
be
as
they would
produced.
clearly
Data
needed,
but
in
a
on the will
be
task has been made less laborious.
distribution strongly
pressure-gradient
influences
distribution
be
the flow development repeatable
and
so it
thoroughly
the course of an experiment.
REFERENCES
""
Pozzorini, R. (1976). "Das turbulente Str~mungsfeld in einem langen KreiskegelDiffusor." Ph.D. Dissertation 5646, Eidgen~ssischen Technischen Hochschule "ZUrich, Ed. Truninger AG, Zirich. Rubesin, H. W., A. F. Okuno, G. G. Mateer, A. Brosh (1975). "A hot-wire surface gauge for skin friction and separation detection measurements," NASA TM X-62 465. Samuel, A. E. and P. N. Joubert (1974). ingly adverse pressure gradient," J.
"A boundary layer developing Fluid Mech. 66:481-505.
Simpson, R. L. (1976). "Interpreting laser and hot-film anemometer arating boundary layor," AIAA Jou., 14:1, 124-126.
%
in
an tncreas-
signals in
a sep-
Simpson, R. L., Y.-T. Chew, and B. G. Shivaprasad (1980). "Measurements of a separating turbulent boundary layer." Project Squid Rep. SMU.4, Purdue University.
257
DISCUSSION
Flows 0140, 1.
It
was
recommended
that
Case
0141
be
0430
designated
"Boundary
layer
in
an
as
a
adverse
pressure gradient." 2.
It
3.
was suggested that Cases 0142 and 0143 be considered
(a)
as a diffuser flow of given geometry,
(b)
as a boundary layer flow using a given pressure distribution.
It
was
layer
suggested flow.
It
that is
Case
uesa
and
Peter Joubert encountered
approximations find Us Moreover,
but
2.9 m
not
be
possible
to provide
other do not
that a
normal
Joubert
and
velocity computed on this
by
the Samuel, x -
The data at
of U
will
necessary
to
compute
the computor
boundary
with details
of a
to the pressure specification.
comment was received after the 1.980 Conference:
The following additional A question concerning Moore.
0431
therefore
or
the outer flow as an alternative
streamline in
4.
either
x -
from
flow, 3.4 m
apply.
in
pitot-static
tube
stress data
are
that
locations
He notes that was
they
used
available
in
has been raised by John
show disagreement between the
the recorded
point and he confirms invesLigators
Case 0141,
values of Cp.
We have
the effect
is
where
usual
the
real and
val-
queried has been
boundary-layer
did not use the wall pressure to
to measure this quantity directly. the
data
file and can be
used to-
gether with the data for Ue to check the measured wall pressure.
(Ed.: This recommendation has not been followed since a review of the complete data set for the 1981 computations indicated sufficient boundary-layer cases are available without it.] ([Ed. (SJK): We have computed this flow successfully as a boundary-layer flow. Success, in our view, depends on appropriate modeling of a detachment zone in transitory stall, but the data are entirely adequate at least for the method given by J. Bardina, A. Lyrlo, S. J. Kline, J. H. Ferziger, and J. P. Johnston (to be published in J. Fluids Engrg.] 258
-. .,i....
___."
.
.
.
.. *
*.
-'
-
.-
•-
SPECIFICATIONS FOR COMPUTATION SIMPLE CASE/INCOMPRESSIBLE Case #0141;
Data Evaluator: A.
Data Takers:
L.
R.
Samuel and P.
Simpson
Joubert
PiCTOGIA[L SuLm4Y Date evo4. eooori
rioý o040.
1.
Sl.
0on. -DiLfuser floa. (.noopsrLoed).÷
Puib-r of
Test 1ijg
Came
co_
_ _ _1
0_
_
5![.
V or
dp/d. or
Stations Moosor4d
ProfiiCo "
_
_r_
_s
_-_ _ tlog
Iloses
Plotwa
Orint
4, Rbnel-ion
Abcis
1.0
x
use
1
Cf
x
Ordinate
Abscissa
Range/Posit ion
Cf
x
1.04 < x < 3.39 m
y
(,v/U2)
0 < y < 0.040 m
Jou o~,Plot .°.,I
2
_
tubs,
)
,
.
n_ lo_ _ _ l_ ty _
0.)Z
tro-6 •
_ 1, ch~ek".
•
A I- .-I*
oments
1.339 Comments
3 curves at
x - 1.04,
1.44,
2.38,
2.89,
1.79 m. 0 < y < 0.040 m
v/U
3
3 curves at
x -
3.39 m.
.Note
Cf
0 < y < 0.10 m
U/Ue
y
4
is
normalized
on
2 curves at
Special Instruction: the reference velocity
Uref
at
x - 2.87,
x
0,
3.40 m.
the
first
and not the local Uer
pressure tap,
Ie
259
*
.
.
.
.
-
PLOT 1 CASE 0141 FILE 4 I|"
II
0.006 0
CFC CFPT
o 0.004
CFFE
0o0
t
Cf
08
0.0020 00
x
(in)
PLOT 2 CASE 0141 FILE 25,26,27 0.04
--
YI
k
1 .A44
PLOT
. CAS
1.79
0110'LE2,6
00
0
0- 0 tt
0
0 0
S*
0.00 L1t 0
0.001
0.002 0
0.001
260
0.002 0
i
0.001
.
0.001
.
...
PLOT 3 CASE 0141 FILE 28,29,30 0.10
x
3.39
2.39
2.38
00
,,.0
~0.05
•a
0
".o
oo"
00
0
0
00
0
00 o0
*
I,
000 0
0.001
0.002
-.. 0
0
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.002
PlOT 4 CASE 0141 FILES 14,16 0.10
x - 2.87 a
-
3.40
--
' 0'
0"
008 L Yoo '..-..
0" 0
"0
0.06
0 0.04
00
40
0
-0
-0 0
0 0
0.00
-
0
1
0
o
0, 0
0
II rI
I
0
°
0.5
0.5
0
1
1
n~
--
:4
.t . ..
,
-,
>-
-,.
,.
jJ
.
:--:'
261
Da "8a FICATjj
NS FjR COMPUTATION
ENTRY CAE/INCOMPRESSIBLE Case #0142; Data Taker:
P
lO 0140.-
Data Evaluator: R.
Dotat
Pozzorini
l
rt
R.
-ak.
R.
L.
Simpson
(Low-Core Turbulence)
m+ ker ot htI ..a... t St.
on.
'Dtfffuser |Vi- (u-4parsted).'
V..~
V.locity Cam Deta laker
j
year Ni
.o.try
or _C'_'
U,
V
-2
PreF91e. -
I
Re t
C
oCor
.t
Cal 0 14, 2
oleur oico
0ee4erlel 12
12
12
12
12
*
(b
-
C."n AA&.1,6'
i
l.. a --
d
tub . 11 .t
f41.9)
4.5t Area Ratio 4A
-
C
l-s 10 1
l/d
.d io.
2 .U ,
I.
-tS~l
ca0thl Oher Mote. O r.
l.02t (]e
tIrbuL.ec4).
1;.-
0.311
1
___J
Plot
Ordinate
Abscissa
1
Cf
x
2
Cpw
Range/Position
Comments
-0.055
< x < 1.90 m
-0.055
< x < 1.90 m
_
Cpw
(p
D
pD)/
'2 r/2 ref
Ref values and P at locations •hown on sketch ?n Summary, Case 0142 al)ove. 3
U/U
r
-uv/U2
4
0 < r < D/2
2 curves at x - 0.5723 m and x = 1.813 m (Files 22, 27).
0 < r
5 curves at x - -0.055, 0.1908, 0.5723, 1.049, 1.813 m. (Files 16, 19, 22, 24, 27).
< D/2
Special Instruction: P -
,all
pressure at given x.
U, - velocity at tunnel centerline. PD'
V
Pref'
Uref are defined in summary. to Pozzorini's Case 2 with
This case refers
LE/DE
-
4.5
and
P-
D
100 mm;
see Summary.
9.
262
+',•
-•
,'
•'.
...
PLOT I CASE 0142 FILE 2 0.002
0
0.001
0.000F 0
0.5
.2
PLOT 2 CASE 0 142 FILE 2 0.6 00000-. 0 oc0oc
0.6 00 0 00 upw
0
0
0.4 ~ 0
0.0
0
o
C-0
0
1
263
i
PLOT 3 CASE 0142 FILES 22,27 x
020
o 0.5723
1.1 *0
0
0.15
I.
.
0-*
.
0 0
0
0.05
S0
0 0
T
0
0.00 i-
-
SI-
0
0.5
1
0
0.5
U/U'
--
16,19,22,24,27 0142 FILES PLOT 4 CASE ., ' 'I . .
::..
x -- 0.055 a
0.5723
0.198
1.049
1.80 3
*
020T-4i
0.150 .1I
00 0
-
I
00
".C05 r
-'b
0
,i
000
*
0
40
00
0.00'-
"0..05
0
0.005
.
.
O
0
1
+2 o
.
0.005
.
0
.
0.005
0
0. 0
'5
264
7.
...
SPECIFICATIONS FOR COMPUTATION ENTRY CASE/INCOMPRESSIBLE Case 4#0143; Data Taker:
Data Evaluator:
R. L. Simpson
R. Pozzorini (High-Core Turbulence) FICTOGIAL 4RUe&J1
VI". 0140.
Oct. 9l.u.&6u r i.
Sift"On.
velocity C...
Oc.Te-.y...
T..t KI&Ioo
CP
U
01lffy$er PLowm(unisparated).e
Trk u
Profile.
te
u
'C
lt L.
C
T4s
C.. 0143 few.001l
0
C..4-A
ti..
.21 6
u
~
pl-4'ot@,s (bt.d
6
.
oXther Mated
ý cldf~ - r hg .blw) t6 re6(Feeoste)
Pei I,.
Plot
Ordinate
Abscissa
1
Cf
x
2
Cp
x pw
Range/Position
Comments
-0.055 < x < 1.90 ma -0.055 < x 0) in
with order
The computatitns
ciform and duct. type code
flow can be assumed.
W - 0
Local
at the inlet of the square duct
0
the
an appropriate to predict can be
which corresponds
to
turbulence-related
square duct change
flow in
in
should the
x'/D'
streamwise
be
- 24.6 location
over
conditions
formed by if
corre-
computed
boundary
the passages
terminated at the last
0) 0 where a
This condition corresponds to spec-
and letting all
in
(x/D
the cru-
a parabolic-
where data will
be taken.
287
.•
.''..'',.''••'
"...'.....
';.
"
.
.
.'.'.'
..
•
•"
.
"
,
"
"•*
-.
".
"."
"
"
"
it)
wt
-,4
ir-44
0~d
(A
CC
0
Ab-4
r-. *~
Li.
288
>
.'. DISCUSSION
Case 0113 (P1) E.
P.
Sutton raised the question of need for rounding plate leading edge.
cussion led
to general
agreement
(J.
P.
Johnston,
F.
Gessner)
undesirable in view of laminar flow results and that, at worst, would only cause
that rounding
Dismay be
the sharp leading edge
very short, occasional separation regions which would be practically
unimportant. J.
Hunt suggested
effect of the
that changes
to the turbulence
structure may be an important
.rucifor-m.
I Greber suggested the need to specify some type of vector output,
possibly con-
tour plots. E.
Reshotko noted the necessity to ensure that the foir flow channels within the
cruciform are independent by adjusting the downstream pressure. After discussion,
there was general agreement that the current cruciform blockage
-7-
is acceptable and the 3* leading cage is adequate. J.
Hunt and D. J.
Cockrell recommended flow visualization,
if
possible,
to ensure
complete flow documentation.
i--
289
289-
,
.--
PREDICTIVE CASE $V1CIFICATIONS
Coordinator:
Case f0113 (PI);
File
I
Independent Dependent Variable(s) Variable(s) (Output) (Label)
FOR COMPUTATIUN
J.
K. Eaton
Range of Independent Variable(s); Locations
of points 1-55, For each of files PI-9, create a with labels I
70
For location see Fig. 2. PI-i through binary array
70
output values for variables Use file numbers indicated.
PI-I
1-55
U/Ub
at x/D = 70
Pi-2
1-55
V/Ub
at x/D
-
Comments
through 55 and associated
Pl-3
at x/D
W/Ub
1-55
-
indicated.
P1-4
at x/D
u2/U2
1-55
70
2
70
P1-5
1-55
v2 fub
at x/D
-
70
P1-6
1-55
w 2 /Ub
at x/D -
70
Pl-7
1-55
uv/Ub
at x/D
70
P1-8
1-55
Uw/Ub
at x/D
P1-9
1-55
Uat
PI-10
1-N
y/D, z/D
locating points for isotach U/Uc - 0.70 D 0specifying
P1-iI
1-N
y/D, z/D
locating points
at x/
b
-
70 70
-
N for each fL'le irn writing and See at head of file on tape.
instruction 3.
for isotach U/Uc
For each of files P1-10 through P1-14, create a 3-element array with labels 1-N for N points the given isotach location. Report the value of
0.80
-
x/D -70 PI-12
y/D, z/D
1-N
locating points for Isotaeh 0.85 U/Uc
x/D
-
70
290
S.. . i¢ •."J:?-l•:{'.
. . :-. • - .-: : ' , ::•: -. .,:?~-
:
"
...- .
.
- --.. i - / .
.
I .
---.-
.
. . ," "2--:1"',1.1 ;,'
.
.
"'
: 'i - • . :
Independent Dependent Variable(c) V'riablc(s) (Label) (Output)
Fil: . PI-13
I-N
y/D,
Range of Independent Variable(s); Locations
z/D
Comments
locating points for isotach 0.90
U/Ut -
x/D - 70 PI-14
1-N
y/D,
z/D
locating points for isotach U/Uc - 0.95 x/D - 70
z/a
P1-15
w
0 < z/a < 1 x/D
PE-16
I-N ___
P1-17 -_
Pi-18
y'/a, z'Ia
_
_
1-N
1-N
value of N in writing and at head of file.
U/Umax " 0.80
For each of files Pl-16 through P1-27, cretes a 3-element acrayl. with, labels 1-N specifying
y'/a, z'/a __._
_
y'/a, z'/a
y'/a, z'/a
tape.
8"
__x'/D'
the
given isotach location. Report the value of N for each file in writing and at head of file on
U/Umax - 0.85 8.2 -
L
U/Umax - 0.90
"x'/D' Pl-19
70
-
___________________________________
1-N _
For create Report a binary arrayfile of P1-15, N elements.
- 6.2
U/USax - 0.95
x' /D' - 8.2 PI-20
I-N
y'/a, z'/a
U/Ueax
0.80 " 16.4
x't/D' P1-21
-P1-22
1-N
1-N
y'/a,
y'/a,
z'/a
z'/a
U/Uax - 0.85 x'ID'
16.4
i/Uax-
0.90
-'/D'
Pl-23
t-,q
y'/a, z'/a
U/Umax x1'/D'
PI-24
1-N
y'/a, z'/a
-
16.4
0.95 - 16.4
U/Ux - 0.80
x'/D' Pl-25
1-N
y'/a, z'/a
24.6
U/Umax " 0.85 x'/D'
- 24.6 291
•... :, . . . ... . ... . . .. . :.:. . . ,... .: . '- . .. : :- . . : - . :- -:... .
...
..
. .
..
.-..
Fi,
I Pl-26
Tndependpnt Detpendent Variable(s) Variable(s) (Output) (Label) 1-N
Rangc of Tndependent Variable(s); Locations
y'/a, z'Ia
-/ua 0.90
X
Pl-27
1-N
-D
P1-29
24.6
0 < x'/D' < 25
'D
y/a'
U/b.0
< yt /a' < I
x'ID' PI-30
Y /a'
U/Ub~m
8.2
-
0 < y'/a' < 1 -tD
i'1-31
y Val
24.6
-/mx 09
y'/a, z'/a x'/D'
Pl-268
U/tlb,m
16.4
0 < y'/a' < 1. 24.6
x/ -
P1-32
y /a'
V/Ub,.
0 < y'/a' < 1
P1-33
y'/al
V,/LUb.
0 < y'/a' < 1 -16.4
P1-34
IU~
y I/at
0 < y'Ia' < x/t- 24.6
2
P135 y'a
2
0 < y'/a' array of N elements with labels of y'/a'. Report the value of N for each file in writing and at head of file on tape.
File # P2-39
Independent Dependent Variahle(n) Varishle(s) (Label) (Output)
Pl-39 y'/a'
V v 2 /U 2 ,
Range of Independent Variable(s); Locations
Pl-40
v 2 /U blm 2
y'/a'
-
y'/a'
--ý-V/Ubm
< I -24.6
0 < y'/a'
_
*
.
"
-..
. ..
.
.
_ -. --
,
.
*
Independent
Dependent
F1ile #
Variable(s) (Label)
Veriable(s) (Output)
Pl-53
y/D'
w
•
-.
-
-- . - - ..
.
.
., -
.
Variable(s);p. Locations
/rw,
0 < y/D'
Comments
< I
For each of files Pl-53 through PI-55, create a binary array of N elements with labels y/D', IT/*.Z. reporting values of T Report the value of N for e~ch in writing and at head of
.2_
Pl-54
y/D'
T
0
0
0.2 0 0 0.1
0 0 0 0, 0
1
26
Figure 3.
-
50,
2
10,
N/W1
3
AR = 10.3 (at
4
3
x/W1 =-5)
Inlet cross-stream direction turbulence profile. 309
......
...
....
....
..
. .
.......
.
""77
ow
SHOCK-BOUNDARY LAYER INTERACTION Preliminary Specification
Predictive Case
--
6
.
Presentation Prepared by John K. Eaton GENERAL DESCRIPTION
In this experiment,
a shock-boundary layer interaction will be studied at various
free-stream Mach numbers. and
the
impinging
Both the flat
A turbulent boundary
shock
will
originate
at
a
layer will be grown on a flat plate
separate
shock
generator
plate and the shock generator will span a lxl-ft
Measurements will
include wall static
pressure,
(see Fig.
supersonic wind
mean velocity profiles,
1).
tunnel.
and skin-
friction
measuremonts.
There is
a possibility of obtaining data at higher Reynolds numbers by modifying the
test plate.
Data
will
be
obtained
for
the
conditions
shown
in
Table
1.
.
This will depend on the extent of the region of two-dimensional flow.
DETAILED FLOW SPECIFICATIONS A detailed
flow specification
cannot be
given
at
this
time.
Preliminary
work
will be done with a l.minar boundary layer to check the flow two-dimensionality. the preliminary work indicates that the flow conditions are well controlled,
If
the ini-
tial condition data for the turbulent boundary layer case will be sent to computors.
TABLE I
'
Test Conditions
*This
M
Max Re (based on plate lelgth)
1.6
2.1 x 106
2.0
2.2
2,5
2.3
3.0
1.8
3.5
1.5
4.0
1.?
case was not finally accepted as a predictive case for the 1981 Conference.
elimination of adverse three-dimensional time available before January 1981.
effects
proved
too difficult
to solve
in
.
-
310
.
.
.
-
.
,""
'
The the
.0
A44
/
/.
1
I
I
I
I
/
I
SHOCK GENERATOR (VARIABLE. INCIDENCE)
_
-b
TEST PLATE 12 in.
10 in.
I
.............. . . .
Figure 1.
I
I
-I
Wind Tunnel Configuration
DISCUSSION Predictive Case ' E.
P.
S"tton suggested
of obtaining
two-dimensional
ten.hnica' flow.
oversight is J.
Fatoa
remarked
agreed to provide technical oversight for this case.
311
Im;
necessary to ensure the best chance that
S.
Bogdonoff
had already
TRANSONIC AIRFOIL Preliminary Specification -
Predictive Case c
Presentation Prepared by John K. Eaton GENERAL DESCRIPTION Data
are being
plete data '
obtained
and
a
ii)
separation. The
a NACA 64A010
airfoil
with a
acts will be obtained foe" three angles of attack
Mach number of 0.8. case,
for
Two additional higher
Mach
The experiments
top and bottom walls
of
.,ases will be
number,
the wind
(0,
tinnel
are
2,
investigated:
low-angle-of-attack
are being conducted
15.24-cu
in
case,
perforated.
Com-
and 4 degrees) i)
a 6"x 22"
chord.
at a
a low Mach number which
gives
severe
transonic wind tunnel. Boundary-condition data
including U and V on the upper and lower wind tunnel walls will be supplied. Measurements component,
frequency-shifted, of U,
measurements model,
will include mean and
V,
u'2,
rms pressure
laser-doppler
v12,
along the model surface,
and u'v' and in
on
velocimeter
the airfoil
A two-
system will be used to obtain
Measurements will
.
surface.
be made upstream of the
the near and far wakes.
DETAILED FLOW SPECIFICATIONS Detailed the
flow specifications
boundary-condition
data.
will
be issued after
These data
should
be
the experimenter
sent to
computors
has measured
by January
31,
1981.
DISCUSSION
Predictive Case L There was general agreement with E. top
and bottom
troublesome technical
"K:.:
in
tuLnnel
walls
are
thi3 experiment.
reviewers
P.
perforated,
Sutton's observation that, the
M. Childs and J.
side-wall
boundary
Spreiter were
since only the layers
could
be
suggested as possible
for this experiment.
This case was not finally -.ccepted as a predictive case for the 1981 Conference. There were reservationo regarding the small aspect ratio of the airfoil and the inherent difficulties in avoiding three-dimensional effects. There was also insufficient time to properly document the data in time for the specifications to be submitzed to computors by January 1981. "This e:-periment is currently being completed.
"312
,._
.
.
.
-
DISCUSSION General Predictive Cases 1.
recomended
It was
that all
the
predictive
teat cases
proposed
should
be
re-
tained. 2.
The need
for specifying
initial, boundary and downsr:eam conditions were exten-
sively discussed for all predictive cases. 3.
E. Reshotko, metric
J.
Eaton, C. Sovran,
information,
and J.P. Johnston favored giving complete geo-
together with mean an'!
turbulence quantities
at an initial
plane, to computors. 4.
1. Durst favored providin& downstream conditions for those -ith elliptic coden.
5.
J.
Hunt
suggested
that
some spectral
data and/or
information concerning
scales
would be needed by some methods. There was broad agreement that better specification of test geometries, exhaust conditions,
vould be needed.
The
including
issue of whether flow specifications favor
pcrticular calculation schemes vas raised and discussed,
but not resolved.*
[Ed.: In the step case, specifications will 8ive geometry and initial conditions. Computore requiring downstream boundary date can generate them by employing a fictitious tailpipe of sufficient length for their purpose.]
313
FLOWS WITH BUOYANCY FORC9S
Flow 9000 gvaluator:
J.
C.
Wyngaard*
SUMMARY (From Letter from J. C.
In
Wyngaard
to S.
January
1980 you asked me to evaluate in
1980-81
AFOSR-IITTM Stanford
for the
to undertake
the task,
and in
April
J.
Kline,
7/15/1980)
more detail buoyancy-influenced
Conference
on Complex Turbulent
I expected
to ha',e an evaluation
Flows.
I
flows agree,
done by sometime
iti June. i .
agree
that an important part of turbulence modeling is
flows
with strong
elude
both unstably
forces.
I
also agree
and stably stratified
flows
However, my reflection and research
rcaments. me
buoyancy
that an evaluation
of
there
flows,
to
that
the ability
such an evaluation
should
from laboratory and geophysical orer the past
the
to calculate
standards
In-
envi-
few months has convinced
you have
established,
is
not
possible at this tiMe. The boundary most
layers
accessible sources
-
in
states
*
stable
ranging
quasi-steady
dimensional Reynolds it
can be
physical
and
They
and
onea
so
atmosphere
and
the
having
their
large and
upper ocean
structure
states
effects.
of
are
is
often in
shear
well-suited
Thus a successful
to are
to
one-
the laboratory often have
nearly
stratification
flow
turbulence,
Reynolds-number-dependent;
flows as
the
They are found
neutral
Reynolds-number
flows
are perhaiý;;
turbulence.
through
thus
stratified
laboratory
arbitrary
cont&inment
convection
extremely
By contrast, that
low
free
homogeneous,
csifficult to find
and
negligible
lower
have
locally
idealizations.
numbers
the
from essentially
stratification.
often
tion,
int
of buoyancy-influenced geophysical
in
addi-
one-dimensional as
geo-
(flux Richardson number)
evaluation would have
to be
based largely on geophysical data. Over .
have
.
of
the
past
5-10
years,
a
large
number--certainly
sevpral
appeareL which deal with the modeling of these geophysical these
flows, tion
models
are
variants
and often they are effects,
layers.
to
Many of
nble,
reproduce these
of
second-order
with some
what
papers
the
cdo
is
type
dozens--of
boundary layers.
developed
for
use
known
include
Center for Atmospheric Research,
in
Most shear
tuning for convective or stable stratificaof some
the
broad
attempts
features at
of
these
P.O.
"314
Box 3000,
boundary
comparisons with measure-
ments.
.National
papers
Boulder,
CO
80307.
I'."
The first is
There are several points I would like to make about this activity.
our knowledge of the structure of these geophysical boundary
broadly speaking,
that,
does not approach
layers
of laboratory
that
While I believe that
shear flows.
the
first measurements of the Reynolds shear stress and heat flux budget were done in the this is
not in the laboratory,
atmosphere,
have the exhaustive sets of carefully ti.ken, of
ments
mean
the
and
structure
turbulent
we simply do not yet
kather,
not typical.
statistically reliable, of geophysical
complete measurethat are
boundary layers
needed for flow documentation. A second point is
"physical aspects
of
that of laboratory shear flows,
lags so far behind
flows
and
verification
that because our documentation of the structure of
is
refinement
this in
a manuscript
being
fairly
which will appear in
that model
I fear I pointed
neglected.
widely
these geo-
Turbulent
Shear
Flows
out some II,
the
In particular, I argued that in convecproceedings of the 1979 London conference. tively driven turbulence the pressure covariances, transport terms, and the diessipation rates in the second-momenL equations behave quite differently than in shear flow, In order
and that the widely used shear-flow closures for these terms are incorrect. to
show this,
however,
I had to average
over many sets of measurements
and the conclusions are more qualitative tha:i quantitative.
ments,
tion, perhaps it
and experi-
Given this situa-
is natural that buoyant-flow model( rs do not seem to work as hard on
model verification as shear-flow modelers do. Thus I feel that the buoyant-flow evaluatior. could uit now be done to shear-flow While many of
standards.
us in
the field believe
that contemporary models
do make
significant errors in their predictions of convective turbulence structure, it is all I think that an attempt to but impevsible tn dorumenr thq 94eq'.otelvy at this time. do such an evaluation,
in the context of your conference,
migh'
ultimately turn out to
be a disservice to the community. Perhaps what we need instead for buoyancy-influenced flows is Townsend
has
done for
shear
flows.
Important
topics might
a monograph such as
include,
for convective
such active research areas as
flows, I.
structure of the overlying entrainment region
2.
deviations from Monin-Obukhov Rimilarity in the surface layer
3.
the nature of the pressure transport of turbulent kinetic energy, known to be important at the bottom and top
4.
the behavior of the turbulent transport (third-moment divergence) terms
5.
the effects of baroclinity (i.e., vertical variation in the horizontal mean pressure gradient) on boundary-layer structure
6.
effects of entrainment on boundary-layer structure
7.
the vertical profiles of dissipation rates of turbulent kinetic energy and scalar variance
315
I
8.
validity of local closures in convection
9.
influence of structure.
the shape of the buoyancy-flu,
profile oa boundary-layer
These point could be discussed in the contLxt of the underlying physics, do exist could be included,
with the appropriate caveats.
concerns a key structural aspect, be included in a data archive.
I emphasize that none is
and what data
While each of these points now well-enough measured to
One could make a comparable list,
and statement,
for
stably stratified flows. I hope that my position does not cause you serious problems with your conference. After these months of reflection,
however,
it
is
the only one I feel comfortable with,
I would be happy to dle-u:s arey of the points with you in more detail.
DISCUSSION Flow 9000 B. Launder:
I
viewpoint
am in general Lgreement with John Wyngaard's stakewent but I feel his seems to be unduly pessimistic.
precision of
The data may not jchieve the degree of
the laboratory non-buoyant data, but they are cerzainly good enough
to do at least some coarse sorting out among turbulence moels now in use. might also remark that "answers" quite the precision required
for buoyant flows are generally not needed with
in aerodynamics
(a
factor of 2 on effective diffu-
sivity is
often close
(when
question of commissioning a buoyant-flow
the
enough).
One
I
would
also underline
my earlier
observation
survey was raised)
that be-
cause buoyant flows involve coupling between turbulent heat and momentum fluxes, it
would
seem more
informative
to
precede
such a
survey
with one relating
V
to
heat-transport mechanics with negligible buoyancy effects. , -
Recommendation: Buoyancy effects would requir• a more detailed study, including also the matter of scalar transp rt. It is unlikely that this can be done in time to
-.
be meaningful for
*]
not be used for the 1981 Conference.
the 1981 Conference.
It
was confirmed
that this flow should
316.
".•',
~316
•
"
• •-
.
-
.
...
..
...
.
.
.
.
•
I.•
.
-
FLOWS WITH SWIRL Flow No. Evaluator:
0340
A. P. Morsee
SUMMARY (presented at the 1980 Conference by A. P. Morse)t
INTRODUCTION This summary deals only with free swirling flows (flows in which the main region of interest is remote from solid walls). A full report has been submitted to the Stanford 1980-81 Organizing Committee, Morse (1980b). The addition of swirl has large-scale effects on free jet development. In particular, the rate of mixing increases with swirl intensity.
Thus swirling
Jets spread more quickly,
velocities decay more rapidly than in a non-swirling
jet.
and the mean
In a strongly swirling jet
the gradients of static pressure set up across the flow field introduce adverse axial pressure
gradients
in
the region of swirl decay,
and these may be
cause reversal of the forward velocities near the jet axis. is
set up downstream of the jet orifice.
of the stream lines,
and the flow is
strong enough to
Thus a recirculation zone
Weaker swirl leads to less strong curvature
.:
then amenable to analysis as a thin shear layer.
Even so,
the spreading rate may reach as much as twice that of a non-swirling jet. The enhanced mixing resulting from the adverse pressure gradient leads to increases in the turbulence
intensities.
Further downstream,
where the swirl field is
•. .
weakened,
"
the turbulence levels and the spreading rate reduce approximately to those of the non-
-.,
swirling jet. EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS"'.' A summary of previous investigations of free swirling flows
is
given in Table 1
of which five are considered to display satisfactory internal consistency. These are presented in Table 2, alongside the earlier measurements of Rose (1962) and Pratte and Keffer (1972). tions.
Dept.
of Mech.
All five cases
are suitable
-
'
Engr.,
Imperial College, London SW7 2BY,
England.
317
... %
-
test cases for comparison with computa-
The report on this flow was received too late to evaluate it and review it in accordance with the standard procedure. It is accordingly not a test case for the 1981 Conference.
~~~~~~....-.'.'.".' .-.'.'." .'
"
. ."
.• * .. '- , .
•.. .
..
"
.-.-
'
.'-"..-
•."
The swirl number,
S,
in Tables 1 and 2 is
defined ar
RG
x
where R is
a characteristic
dimension of the flow (usually
the axial momentum flux, and Ge is The data of H6sel (1978) the
stagnant
"(1980a)
atmosphere.
the nozzle radius),
G. is
the angular momentum flux.
and Fornoff (1978)
The exit
diameter
of
refer to a 3ingle jet exhausting into the
jet
nozzle was
also studied the single jet (exit diameter 25.4 mm)
20 mm.
Morse
and extended the investi-
gation to the case of a jet exhausting into a uniform stream of low turbulence intenThe initial velocity ratio of the two streams
sity.
velocity of
the outer
(inner-to-outer) was 2.70.
jet remained constant (to within ± 2%)
The
over the axial range of
measurement. Co-axial (1980).
In
jet flows were also studied by Hellat
the latter case,
diameter ratio of 2.79,
(1979)
and Ribeiro and Whitelaw
the flow originated from concentric pipes of an internal
the two jet streams being separated initially by a wall thick-
ness of 0.34 times the (internal) radius of the inner pipe. The ratio of the maximum jet
velocities
occur.
(inner-to-outer)
Hellat's
ratio of 2.07. tion and .
flows
were
at
the
generated
exit plane was 0.71. in
concentric
unfortunately,
for the highest
an internal
diameter
one without recircula-
swirl number,
by the measurements was insufficient to cover
Icovered
did not
pipes of
The investigation covered three swirling flows,
two with;
Recirculation
the axial distance
the uhole of the area in which
flow reversal occurred.
"All of
•,l
the cases recommended as suitable for prediction entailed measurements of
the three components of the mean velocity vector and all six non-zero Reynolds stresses. .. ,The
H6"sel and Formoff used laser-Doppler anemometry,
anentometry. experental below.
flow conditions
the remaining authors hot-wire
at the nozzle exit are givzn in
The accuracy of the measured data is
the references
typical of that iv jc- or mixing-region
flows (see Flow 0310). TEST CASES Case 0341.
Ribeiro, M. M. and J.
H. Whitelaw, J. H. (l)'O)
*Co-Axial Jets With and
jWithout Swirl" I'nthis
"S"
0
and
stationary.
-- :-eri-ent S - 0.31 This
test
-. 1-.- mf U, V, W and all u iu
for downstream distances up to case involves
decay of the maximum swirl velocity.
"318 ' I..
x/D - 6.
the theoretical
tween the variation of the centerline values of U, u I
were measured for swirl numbers The external field was
and experimental 2
and v
2
with x/D,
coepacison beas well as the
"Axisymmetric Free-Shear Flows With and Without
(1980a).
A. P.
Morse,
Cnse 0342.
Swirl"
are given
for
the
velocity ratio is
jet
0.32
-
results
into a uniform flow in which the inner to the outer
issuing
2.70. "Drallstrahlenuntersuchungen mit elnem Weiter-
l1sel, W. (1978).
Case 0343.
S
similar to Case 0341 with the addition that for
This case is
entwickelten Laser-Doppler-Messverfahren" similar to Case 0341 in
This case is
the swirl numbers tested are Case 0344.
J.
Hellat,
S -
1.33
which the
and
field is
external
but
1.70. Erdgas--Diffusion
"Turbulente Str~mung und Mischung in
(1979).
stationary,
Flammen mit Luftdrall"
S
-
This
case
is
similar
0.40,
1.15,
and 2.28.
Fornoff,
Case 0345.
Case
to
0341
but
has
an
extended
of
range
S
covering
"Experimentalle und Thcoretische Untersuchung von
M. (1978).
Drallstrahlen" similar to Case 0341 but has an extended range of x/D up to 40,
This case is S
-
for
This range of x/D was covered in Case 0343 for larger values of S.
0.53.
CONCLUSIONS are
data
Reliable
for
scarce
the measurements of H6sel (1978)
and Pellat (1979)
Neither set of data is
able at present.
H6sel's data display
for prediction.
particularly
flows,
jet
free-swirling
at high values of the swirl number).
flows with recirculation (i.e.,
field
of
the
data
are
of
points
Moreover,
flow.
Reynolds-stress
of interest
measurement
components
is
the
as a suitable test case
however recommended
too large a variation in the axial and angular
for good definition,
first
full
only available
particularly of
description
at
x/D
-
the profiles do not
2.0,
the
so
in
0.6 < x/D < 2.8.
internal
In Rellat's
consistency,
but
only
extend
over
flow with the highest swirl number
the near-
mean-velocity
that the
the S
-
and
prime region
(the recirculation zone) cannot be covered in the computations. greater
for
probably represent the best avail-
momentum fluxes (see Table 2) and, although symmetry is excellent, contain sufficient
those
In this context,
Hellat's
axial
2.28;
range
this x/D
range does not cover the region of recirculation. The data of Ribeiro and Whitelaw (1980)
and Morse
suitable cases for comparison with computation. formier data cover one flow (in of the latter flows, variation
in
(1980a)
These are summarized in Table 2.
a coaxial jet arrangement),
the latter three.
that for the lowest swirl number (S - 0.26)
the angular momentum flux and is
the flows of higher swirl number. 319
have been selected as
recommended
The
However,
displays too large a
only as a back-up case for
-A
"-Ai The
three flows
momentum
fluxes,
selected
symmetry
and
satisfy
the
internal
requirements
consistency
stresses uv and vw with the mean velocity profiles. lation
and
may
be
computed
by
a parabolic
of
of
good conservation
the
magnitudes
of
of
the
the
shear
The flowo do not entail recircu-
"marching-type"
procedure
as
in
Morse
(1980a). ADVICE TO COMPUTORS The magnitude
of
the
shear
stress uw governing
the axial diffusion of
angular
momentum is at least an order of magnitude higher than would be expected from thb of isotropic "turbulent viscosity" hypothesis. comparable to uw and vw (see Fig. uw on the development
of the
only of significance in
Despite its large magnitude,
1).
flow is
small.
calculation
procedure is
not necessary.
for flows with recirculation;
(see Figs.
small compared
ýU/ar (see Fig. 3).
uv is
the influence of
Axial diffusion of angular momentum is
the outer part of the flow
production of uv by the action of uw is radial velocity gradient
In the near field of the flow,
use
while the
to the production against the
Consequently,
This situation is
there axial diffusion is
2a and 2b),
the inclusion of uw in the not,
however,
important,
appropriate,
and the production
2
of uv by uw is comparable to, or even larger than that by -v (DU/Dr). REFERENCES Chigier, N. A., and J. M. Beer (1964). "Velocity and static-pressure distributions in swirlng air jets issuing from annular and divergent nozzles," A J. of Basic Eng., 788. Chigier, N. A., and A. Chervinsky (1967). "Experimental investigation of swirling vortex motions in jets," ASME, J. of Appl. Mech., 89 Series E, 443. Craya, A., and M. Darrigol (1967). Boundary Layers and Turbulence,
"Turbulent 197.
swirling
jet," Plys. Fluids Suppl.,
Fornoff, M. (1978). "Experimentalle und Theoretische Untersuchung von Drallstrahlen," Diplomarbeit, University of Karlsruhe, West Germany. Hellat, J. (1979). "Turbulente Stromung und Mischung in Erdgas--Diffusion Flammen mit Luftdrall," Dissertation Thesis, University of Karlsruhe, West Germany. HAsel, W. (1978). "D-allstrahlenuntersuchungen mit einem Weiterentwickelten LasserDoppler-Messverfahren," Rept. SFB 80/E/120, University of Karlsruhe, West Germany. Kawaguchi, 0., and T. G. Sato (1971). "Experimental investigations of premixed swirlIng jet flames," Bulletin JSME 14:69, 248. Keer,
N. H., and D. Fraser (1965). lent jets," J. Inst. Fuel, 519.
"Swirl,
Part I:
Effect on axisymmetrical
turbu-
"Untersuchung Isothermer Turbulenter Drallfreistrahlen und TurbuMaier, P. (1967). lenter Drallflammen," Dissertation Thesis, University of Karlsruhe, West Germany. 320
F1
6'%-
Mathur, M. L., and N. R. L..MacCallum (1967). swirlers.
"Swirling air jets issuing from vane
Part 1: Free jets," J. That. Fuel, 214.
"Axisymmetric fre~e shear flows with and without swirl," Ph.D. Morese, A. P. (1980a). Thesis, University of London. "An evaluation of data for flow. with swirl--Flow 0340," preMorse, A. P. (1980b). pared for the 1980-81 Stanford Conference on Complex Turbulent Flows. Pratte, B. D., and J1. F. KEFFER (1972). Eng., 94., Series D, 739. Ribeiro, M. M., and J. H. Whitelaw (1980). Fluid Mech. , 96, 769.
"The swirling turbulent jet," ASIJ
ai
"Co-axial jets with and without swirl," J.
"A swirling round turbulent jet. Rose, W. G. (1962). ments," ASME, 3.Appl. Mech., 2.9,Series E, 615.
Part
I: Mean.-flow measure-
"Turbulence measurements in swirling Syred, N., N. A. Chigier, and J. M. Beer (1971). recirculating flows," Symposium on Internal Flows, University of Salford, Paper 13, B27.
321
04
-
-4
-'4
-4
1-
0'
0
0
:33
I
'C-. 00
0
~
0
-4
~
~
~0
.
0-4 04
0
gu
8
004
'
v
l)
*
0 0
,.ý
'.4
C
0.
0
000
00
c o0
6
0
0
-4
1
04ý4 0)
0
4 Q)
0.
0.
0.
0)
Q)
-4 co
U4
0
...
',
(d CL0
t 0.
o
-4.
vj
.
a m
0 06
0
V4
( Ca.
0
0
C
0
4C 0
x
0
0
0
0 '0 0
0
0.
to' W
00
&
0
SXr
0
0
-
0 L0
0
0.ý 3
~0
V) 14
co
w
m4
S,
c
-44
d
t.
U,
tv
ýocoC:
CO
co
,C4oo -4
r--1a0"
0
4.4
o
0
p'
U)~L
0
C \O
IS -4
0
0 0
-
0
tvr r, 0)
44
C
1
-
C
c
-4 C
c
ca m
~
C'
-4--
2
4
0 -ol mc
l
44
04
w'
0-
0'
tJ'-
I-
-
.
40
-".. W-
.C
w0IO
c
00 -0
~ -C
4
ca
Ci
0) ý'
.4-
-
c
0
C
'
f
~-
'."-322C
r
1
z
00
0
a
4
O t)-
..
0.
3
0
TABLE 2
Showing Standard Deviations in
Summary of Principal Test Cases Examined,
Momentum Fluxes and Swirl Number Swirl Number Author(s)
Variation in G
Variation in Ge
Variation in S
o (%)
a (%)
Quoted Value
Mean Computed Value
o (a )
-
0.23
8.3
Rose (1962)
18.5
11.6
Range of Profiles Measured (x/D)
0.235-15.0 1.0-J0.0
Pratte and Keffer (1972)
0.30
0.26* 0.35
16.0* 19.9
,4.4* 29.1
41.6* 38.7
H6sel (1978)
1.00 1.30
1.33 1.70
8.9 15.5
20.8 22.5
12.8 16.3
Fornoff (1978)
0.50
0.53
16.9
28.1
21.4
0.25-40.0
0.40 1.10 2.20
0.40 1.15 2.28
6.8 4.2 5.0
6.0 4.2 3.9
7.4 4.2 8.4
0.56-2.79
0.26
0.31
8.2
6.0
3.3
0-6.0
0.25 0.32
0.26 0.32
11.9 2.1
19.6 2.8
11.8 3.9
0.5-15.0 1.0-20.0
0.40
6.9
10.2
9.1
0.5-15.0
Ribeiro
and Whitelaw
Hellat
(1970
Ribeiro and Whitelaw (1980) Morse (1980a)
(finite
U_.)
0.36 denotes without turbulence
terms.
0.025
-'/
2
\:
0
1.5
1.0 r/rL
-0.025-•.
uv ;
A Figure
1.
Shear-stress levels S - 0.31. (1980),
at
x/D
3
vw ;
-
1.0,
6
uw
6.0.
Data
of
323
'-':"~~~~~~~~~~~.......... -"'-'" "....."."""..-".."...."...-..-i.
.""
."
"-.-'"
-. !
'
..
0.15
(iN
-[-W
*-
V-,<w
rv)-
1.',
r
p
0..0
ax
,
r/r
."
-0.05
Figure 2.
(a) Angular mnomentum balance at
Morse (1980a), S k
0.40. 324
x/D
-0.5
and
(b) at x!D
4.0.
Data of
0.021
0.5
101.5
r/r
P-(1)
Figure
3. Components of S -0.4.
-yz-L-
production of
(i i)
2-uw
uv
at
(ii10 uv
xID
-2.
0.
Uata
of
Morse
(1980a),
325~
--- --
- - -- -- - - - -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
d
~~SESSI0IW
Chairman:
VIIiI
L. W. Carr
Technical Recorders: B. Afshari F. A. Dvorak
Flow 0360/0390 Flow 0380
Flow 8500
Flow 8100/8200 Flow 8400 Flow 8410
326
WAKES OF ROUND BODIES Flow 0360 Case 0361
|
AXISYMMETRIC BOUNDARY LAYOR WITHSTRONG STREAMWISE AND TRANSVERSE CURVATURE
Flow 0390 V. C. Patel*
Evaluator:
SUMMARY In
the
near-wakes
evaluation
of elongated,
be classified able not
data in
Third,
the
boundary-layer
to
and
other
body
theory
the
flow in
exists over the tail
of
emphasis
for several
has
been
reasons.
placed
First,
cases
with
large regions
for separated
and
thf
a result
gradients
is
region
of
the
quite
Second,
are
floi.q are being considered
for
body thickens which
transverse
and
rapidly
available
Consequently,
longitudinal
the body and in
the near-wake;
a complex
the
curvature
turbulent
the entire region
over
first-order
The upstream effects
the near--wake.
reli-
of recirculation,
over
large.
the
on
tar wakes can
and can be dealt with separately.
layer over a long slender
as
normal pressure
influence
test
length,
fails
data,
of bluff bodies,
The boundary
5-10% of
wake
bodies
shear layers,
the near-wakes
the Conference.
effects
axisymmetric
otreamlined
as simple
available.
rear
of
continue
shear
is
flow
characte-
rized by strong viscous-inviscid interaction. LCRITERIA Before embarking suitability determine its turbulent tion
for
on
flows,
shear further
a detailed review of any particular as a test case for calculation aethods
the criteria
in-depth
review are
meet the following criteria (a)
The
4
in .tial
case of vided cne
include,
and
Only
of
a
just downstream of least,
the
in
must the
round body, either
in
making a preliminary
those data
sets which
be well
initial
documented.
conditions
variation
of
The
The
data
contain
information
velocity
on the
belief
the
generally
held
of Hydraulics
Research,
University
stems
Iowa Inst.
must
from
the
may be pro-
boundary conditions or
pressure
of the wake and th.* pressure distribution over the tail (b)
In
the boundary layer over the body or in
the body.
327
that
near-wake. a
of Iowa,
of
at
should
the edge
the body.
This requirement
round wake
hecom,'c
Towa
[A
City,
selec-
appeared
further.
boundary conditions
the wake
at
listed.
were considered
by measurements
wake
that were utilized
set of wake data to developed for complex
fully
52240.
to
developed and attains near self-preservation within a distance of the order of one or two body diameters and that the subsequent wake flow can be treated adequately which are restricted
to
by thin sihear-layer
the far wake are
approximations.
therefore not
Data
suitable as
test cases. (c) The
measurements imust
velo.city
as well
minimum).
profiles
of
turbulence qusntities
both
pressure
(Reynolds
and
mean
stresses,
at
a
The flow in the near-wake qualifies as a complex shear flow
due to the body
as
include
influence of the extra rates of strain
curvatures),
higher-order
boundary-layer
(generated by the
effects
(i.e.,
normal
pressure gradients), localized separation, and viscous-inviscid interaction.
Fairly detailed data are therefore required in order to test
the performance of calculation methods in this environment. AVAILABLE DATA Rodi wakes.
(1975) Although
revie~~ed his
prestzrvation aspects, were
data
review
from was
it indicated
several
critifined
previous '.argely
that most of the
experimenits to
the
in axiaymmetric
Raymptotic
and
data aVa 4 lable up to that
selftime
acquired in the wakes of bluff bodie& with Large regions of recirculation and
were confined to large distances downkstreami of the body. include turbulence measurements.
The only exception to this wap the data of Chevray
(1968) in the near-wake of a prolate spheroid. velocity
and Reynolds
Furthermore, several did not
Chevray's measurements included mean
stresses at a station upstream and at several stations down-
stream of the small region of separated flow at the tail.
This data set could form an
ideal teat case for boundary-layer calculation methods designed to handle small pocketa of separated flow (so-ca1lL3 inverse calculations) and extend into the near-wake, and was therefore examined in detail. Interest
in axisyminetric wakes has
increased in recent
vears due
to possible
naval applications, and several new experiments have been reported since Rodi'a review.
Schetz et al.
have made mean-velocity and Reynolds-stress measurements Ili the
wakes of three bodies of revolution. 2 < x/D < 40 the body. *
In all cases, data were obtained over the range
where x ts the distanc~e from the tail and D is the niaximuin diameter of
The mean-velocity profiles indicated near self-similarity over this region.
Consequently, regioas.-
,
it was concluded
Furthermore, nu
that
the data do not include the
Information
important near-wake
is available either on the bounda-ry layer over
the body or the condition of the flow at the tail.
These data therefore di(: not sat-
isfy the established criteria. The body has
boundary layer
over
been investigated by
tne tail
of
a streamlined,
Patel et al. 328
(1974).
sharp-tailed,
In fact,
axisymmetric
they modified thec 6:11
by
a
attaching
to eliminate
conical tailpiece
Although their detailed measurements were confined
separation. layer,
(1968)
model of Chevray
spheroid
the
to the thick boundary
they may be of interest in wake studies since the flow over the tail possesses
many of
of
the features
thereforc
the modeling of
in
importance
Their data may
near-wakes.
calculation proce-
be useful in testing boundary-layer as well as near-wake
dures and have been evaluated. (1978)
arid Huang et al.
The more recent experiments of Patel and Lee (1977)
have
included not only the thick boundary layer over -he tail but also the near-wake. they provide static-pressure, mean-velocity, and Reynolds-stress data on Tqgether, bodies with different
three different
and boundary-layer histories.
surface-curvature
These were examined with a view to determine their suitability as tegt cases. the following sets oE axisymmetric flow data were evaluated:
In suammary,
Chevray (1968), Patel et al.
Spheroid; Modified spheroid;
(1974),
Low-drag body;
Patel and Lee (1977), Huang et al. After (1980),
of
completion
the
Afterbody I and 2.
(1978),
a
these reviews,
by
report
preliminary
describing yet another data set on a third body of revolution,
et
Huang
al.
was received.
Although this appeaus to address some of the criticisms of the previous measurements, a detailed evaluation could not be carried out within the required time frame. RECOMMENDATIONS Detailed
evaluations of
the five data sets are contained
in
the Review Report.
The resulting recommendations are summarized below. (a)
The
uncertainties which (b)
The
and Huang et al.
data of Patel and Lee (1977)
metric
of Patel et al.
data
(1974)
since
the
measurements
are recommended
rather than for axisym-
for complex wall shear layers
near-wakes
contain some
make them unsuitable as test cases.
thick-boundary-layer
as a test case
(1978)
were
not cortitnued
into
the
should
be
wake. (c)
The
recenly
considered (d)
completed
(1980)
in future evaluations. of Chevray
The measurements data
measurements of Huang et al.
(1968)
represent
by far the most complete
set in the wake of a streamlined axisymmetric body and id recom-
mended
as
a
test
case.
The
static
pressure,
mean
velocities,
and
Reynolds stresses have been measured with acceptable accuracy and the flow
is
judged
interest since near the tail.
to be axisymmetric.
As a test
case,
it
it
of special
it contains a small embedded region of flow reversal It is suggested that the calculations start from the 329
boundary layer over the body, near-wake, ;
Starting mended
*
1972,
to the far wake.
the solutions
at the
since the effects
already
significant
at
of
first measurement normal
pressure
this station.
station,
gradients that,
Note
where this data set was used as a test case,
stream of the separation bubble. *•
continue through the separated flow and
at
x/D - -0.25,
and transverse
is
not recom-
curvature
are of
the NASA-Langley Conference
the calculations were started down-
This is not recommended for the present Conference.
COMMENTS FOR FUTURE EXPERIMENTERS The
crucial uncertainty in data of this
Saxial symmetry,
particularly since
adequate documentation of
type concerns
several investigators have reported that
the flow
over the tail of the model and in the near-wake is quite sensitive to small changes in model alignment
and mounting aýrangement.
.
culties
"
boundary layer and the near-wake.
of
mnking
accurate
measurementE
Another uncertainty stems from the diffiof
static
pressure
These are especially
of
the
subsequent data
flow at
a
well-defined
are to provide
initial
a measure of
rates of strain and normal pressure variation. tutes a "~near-wake- (or
thick
tail
A comprehensive documenis
the influence
the
in the quantifica-
also
important
if
the
of such factors as extra
the question of what consti-
the approach to asymptotic conditions) and how it Is influ-
enced by the initial conditions
(i.e.,
the tail or separation over the body) tional experiments
station
Finally,
across
important
tion of the overall effects of viscous-inviscid interaction. tation
V
are needed,
some of the points which sh
whether the wake starts from Attachea
flow at
cannot be answered with the present data.
including measurements
in separated
flows.
Addi-
These are
id be addressed in the design of future experiments.
REFERENCES
:
"Chevr4,",
R. (l%6°). "The turbulent wake o 2i3- 2 8 4 (see ilso Ph.D. Thesis, The Uni
round body," ASME, if Iowa, 1967).
J.
Basic
Eng. , 90,
Huang, T. T., N. Santelli, and C. Belt (1978). "Stern boundary-layer flow on axisymrmetric bodies," Proc. Twelfth Symp. on Naval Hydromechanics, National Academy of Sciences, pp. 127-157. Huang, T. T., N. C. Groves, and C. Belt (1980). "Boundary-layer flow on an axisymmetric body with an inflected stern," Preliminary Report, DWT-NSRDC. Patel,
V. C., A. Nakayama, and R. Damian (1974). "Measurements in the thick axisymturbulent boundary layer near the tail of a body of revolution," J. Filid Mech., 63, 345-362 (see I1IR Report No. 142, 1973, for tabulated data).
Sm.tric
Pattol V. C., and Y. T. Lee (1977). "Thick axisymmetric turbulent boundary layer and near wake of a low-drag body of revolution," Iowa Institute of Hydraulic Research, "The University of lows, [1HR Report No. 210 (see also Turbulent Shear Flows, Vol. I, pp. 127-153, Springer-Vorlag, 1979).
"330
Rodi, W. (1975). "A review mf experimental data of uniform density free turbulent boundary layers," Studies in Convection, B. E. Launder, ed., Academic Press, pp. 79-165.
DISCUSSION Flows 0360/0390 The Conference
1.
agreed that
the data of Chevray
should form the test case
(Case
0361) for the wake from a streamlined axisymmetric body. 2.
At the suggestion of T. T. Huang it
"be left
was agreed that the data for Flow 0390 should
for future evaluation.
331.
-I-
i."..331
•
"'"-..a.-
>..-
.•.--
.
....... "
........
...
....
...
SPECIFICATIONS FOR COMPUTATION ENTRY CASE/INCOMPRESSIBLE V.
Data Evaluator:
Case #0361;
R.
Data Taker:
C.
Patel
Chevray
FPIC'IQtJ Al. S.IO4AI 1Fow 0)60.
Date Iv..Lwatrt
NSak"e at ro-W. Bodies
V. Patela.
T-I-
Velocity
T.ler
Dati
C""eeat lis
Ge
Goommtry
C
-t
c""
I
-2
V
u.n l l 12a
12
12
2.75 106
-
i
io-s.
Fr..
l~Sel
,enrc* 0.2%
Isttic pressure dLetrlbk tO ,Q, ti-n scr .aatlk eis
2.q2
*
O,214.
IurfAc* preamur.
*..K1odal
.0
Pat.
.h.,
Oter
12 1l
lackL
Wakes).
o
Ges0)41
t
(ketayieetrlc
M4easured
I*iMter at Ststaw
mat ....r.d. a 0 -.
Comments
Range/Position
Abscissa
Ordinate
Plot
2
zC
= PA/qref
2
r/Rref
U/Urn
0 < r/Rref .-...
Preston tube,
-..
.. .
.
.
.
..
L4
diamecer
and 0.635 cm long.
temperature
traverses.
and a width,
parallel
The to the
The flow field was measured
from Pitot pressure and
miniature
total thickness
surface,
Pitot
tube
of 0.10 cm.
probe was based on the design proposed by Vas The
fluctuating
dual-wedge nents
quantities
hot-film
and
the
shear
o
stress.
a
of
The total-temperature
0.0127
cm
thermocouple
(1971).
were measured
probes were used
turbulent
had
total
by hot
obtain
the
Another
wires.
Both single-hot-wire
three fluctuating
hot wire
with epoxy
and
velocity composupport
measured
mass flow and total temperature fluctuations.
Benchmark Data The
tests were conducted
conditions Table 1.
and
the
initial
at
four values of
boundary-layer
The Reynolds number Re(x')
was
stagnation pressure.
thicknesses
The following measured quantities are included
in
a.
Surface (mean):
b.
/Pw=, "w/w Cf x l03 as functions of x, Integral boundary-layer prnperties: 6,
c.
0, (in
6*,
cm)
as
-
0.10 m
are
from the nozzle
given
in
throat.
the data files:
where
Cf =
I
"
2
functions of x.
p/pm,
p/p.,
T/T , U/C
,
pU/p
' , T T/T T
x-stations.
T
as
functions
of
y
at
various
T
Flow field (fluctuating)
(pu-'/)/p U., -
" i,
."
-"
'.. ,'."
"- '. . . ".
-1
CENTERBODY SUPPORT
CENTERBODY MACH LINES \•_
INSTRUMENTATION PORT
i
'" SURVEY PROBE
Figure 1.
Test configuration
for Case 8403.
.APPROX.
19"
dr':
I
TRAVERSING PITOT TUBE
Figure 2.
.- MOVABLC
'TEST
"
WALL
Schematic of apparatus for Case 8411.
DISCUSSION Flows 8400 and 8410 1.
2.
3.
The Conference stated that high valL.as of the adverse-pressure-gradient parameter r and the large number of measurement stations were the principal, appropriate criteria in aelection of test casesTUB in this class of compressible flows. PITO The Conference agr Ad that Case 8401 should be excluded from the forthe highere e tae ththhva[•ofheder-pressure-g garadeter cases ln test cases b~cause of its questionable starting profile. E•an telagenubr f eauemntstton wrete ricia, ppopi3e,3 Concerning Case 8403, the Conference observed that, at downstreaia profiles, the law Of Lhe wall, ba'ed on measured skin friction, falls lower than L'>at of Coles,
..
SPECIFICATIONS FOR COMPUTATION SIMPLE CASE/COMPLESSIBLE H. Rubesin, C. Horstman
Data Evaluators:
Case #8403;
C. Horotman, M. Acharya
H. Kuasoy,
Data Takers:
a. Aveleateta: K. &*ba~tt &td C. Karsata. View VI~.00 We
'boooary
.
lAyer, is in Averse Presstre Gradioat is an hataymatrjr latarnui vie.,
amber of StaitonsKesewr*4 K
Came Data
V
d/dV of
Test hai
or4 V
mrrp
Taber
-
l
"
O
.
o4ther
C1
O•erl
a.11
CasB03
0.uar. orto_2._
H.
Notes
.i....
TO
_
(b"64dI
Ukr,,--i
friction dailta ;O{g
*.,* ..
,
Plot
Ordinate
Abscisma
-
1
Cf
x
Range/Position
2
0.0005 < Cf 3
Cf
2
0.20 < x < 0.40 m
X
Cf
0.'02
0.20 < x < 0.40 m
x
0.0005 < Cf
U/I,.
040
. .......... .. . .•.'"..-
..
.o
.
%
-i
"
SESSION VIII
Chairtman
J. L. l~urdley
Technical Recorders: S. Pronchick H. Nagib
Flow 0370 Flow 0260
404
HOMOGENEOUS TURBULENT FLOWS Flow 0370 Cases 0371,
0372,
0373,
Evaluator:
J.
0374,
H.
0375,
0376
Ferziger
SUMMARY
In
the companion
paper
(Ferziger,
into three classes containing a total
1980)
homogeneous
turbulent
flows were
divided
These are as follows:
of six cases.
Flows with di.sipation only
1.
Case 0371:
isotropic turbulence
Homogeneous
Flows with redistribution and dissipation
2.
3.
Case 0372:
Homogeneous turbulence with rotation
Case 0373:
Return to isotropy after straining redistribution,
Flows with production,
a.
and dissipation
Strained turbulence 0374:
.,Case
-
b.
Plane strain
Case 0375:
Axisymmetric
Case 0376:
Sheared
strain
turbulence
CRITERIA FOR SELECTION
concerning which data are considered suffi-
This summary contains recommendations reliable
ciently *
The
criteria
for
(2)
the
be in
data
ferentiated the
data.
These
accurate
to
acceptability at
least
for
Case
be
used as
are:
(1) the
rough
from modeling); Except
agreement
the effects
(3) 0371,
the
for
targets
data
from
computational modeling.
different
agree;
experiments
with generally accepted
theory
(as dif-
extend beyond the uncertainty
reported
the data do not meet all
of
of
and the
these criteria,
are therefore made with reservations.
recommendations
"* "*
and
flows are
number.
The
results
will not
be presented
(precise modeling)
amenable to accurate simulation without modeling at low Reynolds of
such computations In
here.
were
the opinion
not
of
reviewed
Ferziger
(1980)
and
computations of this type
the author,
should be considered as complementing
in
the experimental results,
and
should be used iti the future as a check on modeling. All of the
They are
tation.
*
data. been
flows
In
all
to
cases,
provided
along
are to
be
as homogeneous
regarded
t
be simulated from time the initial with
any
- 0
flows
to the
values of the components other
data
about
the
for purposes of
final time given with
of the Reynolds
flow
compu-
needed
to
the
stress have
carry
out
the
!* Mech.
Eng.
Dept,, Stanford University,
Stanford,
CA
94305.
405
..............................................................................
In order that
simulation.
have further provided an estimate of the dissipation at the initial time.
These were
ffound by the prereat author by curve-fitting the data and difierentiating
the result.
The values
*
20%.
..
It
for dissipation must be regarded as having an uncertainty on the order of recommended that the computors use the values provided;
is
one of
This is
well established than 20,
any adjust-
HOMOGENEOUS ISOTROPIC TURBULENCE
CASE 0371. -
if
they should be clearly stated in the entry papers.
ments are made,
_
we
start with the same initial conditions,
all computors
flows in
the best-documented
the
It
literaLure.
turbulence
is
at least at Reynolds numbers based on Taylor microscale greater
that,
the turbulent kinetic energy decays azcording to the power law:
~q22
•o-.
(t
- to-n.)-n
The exponent is well established as 1.25 ± 0.06; the effective origin varies somewhat.
-
the Comte-Bellot/Corrsin (1966)
case is representative of the better data on this flow The specificationb are given in Table I below.
recommended as Case 0371.
and is
we have assumed
In this flow (and some of the following ones)
0375A,
Note that Cases 0372A,
w2 was not measured.
V2 - w2
although
and 0375C are also essentially
decaying homogeneous isotropic turbulence. CASE 0372.
ROTATING HOMOGENEOUS TURBULENCE
The data for this flow (and those below) are not as well established as those for
"the cafe
of decaying turbulence presented above,
and more caution is needed.
As we have pointed out in
',low, the best data are those of Wigeland and Nagib (1978). tne
companion
data
these
paper,
case which
The Wigeland-Nagib
sceles.
anisotropy
contain
appears
in
For this
both
to be most
i.itensities
and
length has
free of difficulties
The calculations should le done at the three ditferent
been selected as a test case.
rotation rates given in Table 1. CASE 0373.
RETURN TO ISOTROPY
Tucker and Reynolds (1968).
Both sets of data appear rý!aionable,
TURBULENCE UNDERGOING PLANE STRAIN types of strain data in
There are two metric
for these flows
:ra given in the table.
(which are the conditions at the end of the contraction) CASE 0374.
strain.
They
are
treated
plaue strain and axisyn-
the literature: The
separately.
of
results
two
experiments
the effect of plane strain on turbulence are recommended--those of Townsend
-•
and
(1956)
but they are suffi-
The sptvc'fications
that they are hard to compare.
ciently different
of Uberoi
flow availab e--those
There are only two examples of this
on and
(1956)
406
• 2- .: .
,....
Y/Y'/2 . ,.._
--
454
A4
:
.. _:.
.
:.•
- .
.
.
::0
PLOT 4 CASE 0263 L 0 .0
I
4
90%0. Oo
0.04
.
0
0
0
4
00
0
0.02
°
0o
0.000.
,
°
"
0
0
0.5
0
Y/Y /
PLOT 5 CASE 0263
0.13
o
..4.
00
o 0 I0
*0
:.
00
0
--
0
0.14
00
0,1-.__ 0
2k/U2
0
___
1
o05
0
.°
._
_
__
_
_..Ii
...
0 0,5
0
Y/I/
.
.
.
.
4551
0
.
- .
SPECIFICATIONS FOR COMPUTATION ENTRY CASE/INCOMPRESSIBLE Case 10264;
Data Evaluators: Data Takers: PICTUIIAL
Timw 120.
B. Launder and W. Rodi Various
0H~OWA5
Date Ivalvatorsi 1. LAns
end W. todf.
N.ssbr of Station.
Th~.dli.nc.
Velocity
o
Test 1111r O~swetry
_______-I Dun~ To"r
Profleas
~
Cý,
well Je.*.
-Turtwlen
Iw..er..
I.e
Ohr
I 00
cos. 02" Voris"e llt&Talr
y.fL~s*ree
o
-
To$
Plot
te
ID t..i1 '.t1. still sir
Ordinate
Absc~issa
0
10
Range/Position
le
t X
o.WPo.' plot.
rajotred.
CommentCs
For this case, no plots are needed.
Output
consists of constants; gee comments below. Special Instructions: I.
The flow configuration and the nomenclature are Flow 0260.
Sufficiently far from the nozzle exit,
and independent of the exact exit conditions. spreads
shown in Fig. 2 of
linearly both normal to
the wall and
dy 1 1 2 /dx and dz 1 1 2 /dx are constant; Computors
the Summary,
the flow becomes self-similar
In this similarity region, the jet in
the spanwise direction, so that
further U. decays approximately as x'.
should calculate the spreading rates dyl/ 2 /dx and dzl/ 2 /dx for the
self-preserving
state and compare them with the measured values recommended by the
survey by Launder-Rodl (1980): dy12dz O.
1/2 X
dx
Equatioa
(11
corresponds
Although
no
clear
closely
to
Reynolds-number
-02
1
the measurements effect
was
of
discerned
Newman in
et the
al.
(1972).
experiments,
computors should make the calculatione with a slot Reynolds number Umb/v of 10~ or greater.
The nozzle shape should have no influence on the self-preserving
but the recommendation to computors
state,
Is to consider the jet issuing from a square
nozzle as shown in Fig. 2 of the Summary, Flow 0260. Computors way solve either theelf-preserving form of the equations (in which prprisaea~mdto be functiono' only of (y/x) and (z/x) or march in the stream direction until a selfpreserving state is reached. 456
SESSION Ix
Chairman:
S- Bogdonoff
Technical Recorders:
IP.
Ebc T. Morel
Flow 8610 Flow 8630 Flow 8640 Flow 8680
457
COMPRESSIBLE FLOWS OVER UEFLECTED SURFACES Flows 8610, Caseg 8611,
8612,
8630,
8640
8631,
8632,
M. W. Rubesin* and C.
Evaluators:
8641 Horstman*
C.
SUMMARY
SELECTION CRITERIA AND FLOWS SELECTED The experiments from
ing
the
treated of
interaction
in
fully
in
test surface
itself.
Settles et al.
(1979);
computor,
and
specifications
will
be
selected
in the
as
Bachalo and Johnson
and Settles et al.
(1976);
for presenting
given
result-
shock or expansion
with
(1980);
this summary each of these experiments will be described
In
flow fields
by
The experiments
Dussauge and Gaviglio
detail in
Delery and Le Diuzet
(1979);
layers
boundary
turbulert
waves generated by the shape of the test cases are reported
characterized
this summary are
view of output
(1980).
the needs of a of
tht
computa-
tions. improvements in
Even the best of these experimento cannot be used to guide
of
performance models.
important
systems suffer of
the
air
of
better
prediction of
on the
and
Another
layers.
for
account
from seeding response
frequency
pre-existing
The
density
than ± 5% to ± 15%.
the
reduction
turbulent
for complex
the existing
in
fields
compressible
is
the
hot-wire and
fluctuations,
LDV
The high speeds
sensing systems.
It
has
local flucttlatimportance
requires an assess-
flows
schemes;
turbulence modeling and computational
within the
of
th? technological
Nonetheless,
turbulence
reason
nonuniformities. of
overall
they axe conducted within
that
measurements.
to
the
assessing
none of the experiments can provide measurement of
that
ing quantities
ment
assumptiorns
of
to preclude measurements
boundary
compressible-flow
burden
been estimated
of
the
of
is
limited
that are so small as
from small windows
adds a
are
means
a
and sp3cif!c,
methods
experiments
additional
requires
provide
however,
buffer-layers
and
inaccuracies
greater data
these
flow facilities
sub-
do,
computational
particular reason
One
compressibl.e
They
models.
lence-closure
turbu-
the data
selected
can serve this purpoee. Selection of the
configuration
was conducted; had
to
have
a
and
each
particular the
studied;
expertment
largczt
range
the basis
was made on of
the variety and number of quality data.
well-defined
the two-dimensionality
had
*NASA-Ames Research Center,
flow: to
be
e.g., well
Moffett Field,
if
nominally
a
CA
of
the experiment
To qualify,
the Experiment
two-dimensional
The
documented.
uniqueness
which
over
variables
of:
accuracy
of
expeLiment, the
relecte.'
94035.
458
L :i ,.
.
.-
- - . -
• : "
-. i-- .
---
--. i
-:
:
. '
""
-
-"
"."
" ..
. ."
'
"
" "
experiments was estimated from these sources: (1) similar experiments; of
the
accuracies
(2)
of
the experimenters'
particular
comparing the results
th dota from
own estimates of accuracy;
instrumentation
based
on
the
(3)
a judgment
eval-jator's
experience
with similar instrumentation. Cases 8611 A
8612.
bump
produces
on
Trdnsonic Flows Over an Axisymmetric Bump and Two-D.mensional
the
surface
ai acceleration
of
ciently high Mach numbers, rate
the
turbulent a
important
technologically.
the
flow on
beyond
of
the
which
in
an airfoil
as a
made
to
thicker,
however,
the
test
model
for
flow
bump.
in
a
on
described
8611 in
at
of
the
dimensional Case
experiment
I.
The
fluid mechanics
is
boundary
curvature
of
Bachalo
axisymmetry of
the generated sides
by
shock wave
the
test
8612
is
bump
in
Fig.
side-wall
boundary
rather
an
experiment
placed
described
both
on
layers,
by
This create angle
Cases
8611
Cases
the
the
bottom
At
"nd
the
ation
of
a
bump
bump can usually
These which
in
be
thicker boundary
may
or
may
not
be
experiment. (1979).
The
experiment
haa the advantages
zero
angle
information and
experiment
shock
waves
wall
Le
of
on
that
it
is
avoids
the wind-tunnel
attack
assures
two-
of
a
Duizet
(1979),
who
employ
wind
tunnel.
The
experiment
8612
in to
the
a
twois
two-dimensional.
The
in
their computational domain the
use of
LDV
systems
x and y directions.
determine
if
their
It
turbulence
choking.
wave
Compu-
for this case.
and is
shock
provide
mean-
urged that model
and
computors
can accommodate
thick shear layers.
deals that
the
largely
with ramps
interfere
shock
Compressi.-L
wave
placec
with tu
the
Corner (Settles et al., on the
the wall point
bottom walls
boundary where
the
experimental configuration and indicates 459
.-.-..--.....-................
very
the wing
formeL
advantage
the
layers.
on
of as
the tunnel and may cause some
feature
ched and Separated
stre.igthen
and
flow remains
and 8612
8611
Figure 3 shows the
S.-
of the
the boundary layers at
Delery
close to the top wall of
transverse curvature in Case 8631.
that
and
are
Although the shock wave generated by the bump interacts with the
2.
turbulence-moment use
bump
primary
Johnson
the model
and
flow over a bump
thought
effects,
and
with
zone
tora may have to include the top wall Both
can be
to sepa-
configurations
the
flow
At suffi-
flow.
dimensional
extends
an
Fig.
interactions walls
is
on
transonic
sufficient the
the surface
wake
desired depending on the objectives of a particular Case
in
shock wave.
such
The
streamline
a
Since
of
fields
occurs
more-easily-probed
accentuate
the
everywhere.
occurs
wall,
with
this shock wave can be
reatta'hment
motion
a wind-tunnel
terminates
underscanding
"Rcattachment"
downstream
on
flowing over wing,
that
over
layers,
of
Of course,
latter.
produce
or that
the strength
an aircraft
significantly
wake
the bump
boundary layer
resembles
differ
a -model,
over
Bump
.....-.....-
1976,
1979).
of a wind
layer. boundary
tunnel
Increases layer
the measurements
in
to
ramp
separates. that were
-
the
showed
flow
it
only,
to mean quantities
confined
are
quantLitLus aru
turbulence
that
Oil
indicated
the meaGurcmont;
Although
undcrstood
is
its side2s.
fences at
and had
twc-dimensional.
be mostly
flow
.-he side walls,
to
The ramp did not extend
made.
to be measured soon with hot wires.
The tunnel
suddenly
tails,
the
in
rapidly
of
separation.
may be
methods
is
ment
described
a
Just
layer.
shear
normal
et al.,
1980)
to
of
of
in
The expericavity,
the
that did
not
the
the cavity
near
the turbulence
oE
emphasizes
The experiment
layer
free-shear
the
reatta.ihment,
reattachment
This
the
free-
achieved
mean-
of
region
shear
maximum
the
layer with
direction.
free-stream
the
by a
preceded
generated.
length
the
edge
upstream
preliminary tests
although
equilibrium.
responding
adjusting
essentially
effects of
upstream
equilibrium,
velocity
remained
streamline-curvature
eliminates
is
layer
boundary
the
at
separation
that
streamline
dividing
occurs
layer ahead of the separation and created a free-shear
the boundary
disturb
a
achieved
experimenters
turbulent
By carefully
5.
Fig.
in
the
which
on
the plate
in
boundary-layer
is
-amp
the
that
except
8631
Flow
to
similar
is
field
flow
This
(Settles
Planar Free-Shear Layer (Supersonic)
Reattaching
Case 8641.
that
gradient
static-pressure
the
by
tested
severely
Also,
neglected.
usually
are
first-order
surface.
the deflected
cavity
but
1976),
Rubesin,
turbulence-
flow (Wilcox and Albel:,
incompressible
in
that have no counterpart
layer
the complexities
mass-weighted
the
of
terms
dc-
are shown
the boundary
two Mach number states without introducing emphasizes
geometric
experiment
that
in
equations
ý.Fiiid
a
the use of mass-weighted
to assess
suited
turbulence-transport
dilatation
Rapid
equations
transport
the
between
changed
is
1972;
in
variables
dependent
particularly
is
This experiment
4.
Fig.
in this
measured
quantities
the
and
flow conditions,
of
wall
pertinent
The
120.
of
the
on
occurs
experiment
by an angle
outwardly
deflected
this
in
investigated
field
flow
1986).
and Gavigllo,
(Dussauge
Expansion Interaction at Supersonic Speed
Case 8632.
show a cor-
do not
and the re-equilibra-
tion processes that occur dowT.jtream. FOR FUTURE DATA TAKERS
RECOMIENDATIONS the
Of
flow over
transonic
or
do not
systems
measurements experiment
such
measured fully
by pitot
thought-out
LDV
nonintrusive
suffer
It
tubes.
be made with other types of probes, et
(Ardonceau
found
1979)
al.,
only those dealing with In
sepa-
ambiguities
of hot
wires
important,
however,
instrument
from directional
pitot
the questionable accuracy of reversed
redundant One
the
a bump employ
these
regions,
rated
recommended here for computation,
five experiments
is
where
systems.
that
they are appropriate.
differences
between
velocities
tubes and LDV so large as to bring into question the data of a careOne
experiment.
then,
recomnendation,
is
that
futtre
data
takers
L
460
i".
..........
S...
-
.-
. , - .-
.
.
-
. .
-
,
.
.
-
_.
.,
-.
-. .
•.
*-
14 should occur.
use
redurdant
if
instrumentat' -n and
possible
the
resolve
differences
that
Other recommendations are as given in the Summitry on Shock-Wavu Boundary-Layer
Interaction Flows (Cases 8651, 8661, 8601., and 8691). EdAitors'
Note:
For
and
cither important comments on data iiweci
instroat'nt accu-
racY, sne also rho following in this volume: (i.)"Epr~et~ Data NCC1.3 for ttonal
Fluid Dynamics"
by Bradshaw et al.,
a position papet;
Coniputa-
(ii) veports of ad-hoc
committees on accuracy of hot-wire data and difficulties in compresqihle flow measuremferits;
(iii) comments
concerning
diffi~culty
in measuring
reversing
flows
by
J1. K,
Eaton and ot~hers in Flow 0420 and by R. Simpson for Flow 0430; (iv) the editor's com-
*
by S. J. Kline on the general nature of accuracy control and uncertainty analysis mor'.! in compres-3idhl 83610,
*
8630,
flows--a
footnote
to
genioral
comment
I
in the
discussion of
FLCwg
arid 8640.
~~Ardonceau,
'Tru F.. D. H-. Lee, T. Ailziary do Roquefort, and R. Goethals (19719). behavior in a sho'._k wave/boundary laver interact! on," AGARD Conference oil Boundary _L-avers '-Ex eriments, Theo y, arid Modelling, AGARD-CP-271 (September). lence
*Turbulert
"An investigation of transonic trrrbulený Bachalo, W. D., and n. G. Johnson (1979). bo~undary layer separatiOTn generated on an axisy-mnetric flow model," AIAA Paper 79-1479, William'sburg, VA (July).L *Delery,
J., and P. Le :ijluzet (1979). "D6couleruent r~sultant d'une interaction onde de choc/couche lirnite turbulente," T.P. No. 1979-146, ONERA. "Turbulent boundary layer/excpansion interacDussauge. J. P., and J. Gavig~lto (11980). sed," 'Ira-aux de 1'I.M.S.T. l.A, No. 130 au CNRS Contracts tion at supersonic 0NEKA, Institute de M.~chanique Statistique de la Turbulence, Univ.'rsLc6 de Aix-j Yarseille 11 (Jun(-). "A one-equation model of turbulence for use with the com-pre.,Rubes~lr,, M. W. (1c'76). st>Navter-Stokes equations,' NASA -1-C-73 (AprilD. "Incilpient separation of a Settles, G. S., S. 1Y. Bogdonoff, and I. F. Vas (1976). supersonic turh~ilent bnrindary layer at high Reynolds nunmbers," AIAA Jou., 14. 50196 (January). "Detailed study of -. J. Fitzpatrick, and S. .M. Bogdonoff (1c,79). Settles, G. S., ittaclied and separated compression corner flow fields in high Reynolds n-'.aber supersonic flow," AIAA Jou., '17, 579-585 (June).
"A study of Settles, G. S., B. k. Baca. D. R. Willi~ms, and S. M. Bngdonoff (1980). reattachment of a free chear layer in compressible turbulent flow,- Princeton Un~versity, AIAA-80-1408, AIAA 13th Fluid & Plasma Dynamics Conference, JiiuLy 14-16) 1980,
Snowmass.
CO.
"A turbulence model for high speed flows," Wilcox, 0. C., and 1. E. Alber (1972). Proceedings of the 1972 H-eat Transfer and Fluid Mechanics Institute, Stanford IVnivezsity Press, pp. 231-252. 461
NASA AMES 2'- 2' W.T. (21'o~POROUS WALL)
DIFFUSION 2.73SECTION cm
23.5 £ cm
_____
cm
/
6 *
cm9
,cm
Ti *
MODEL SUPPORT
I0~
t0.A)-
~0.87ý-
*
2
t1-
30
'P,(91
(13.12 0.1) 106/m
1 0.003; RO/L
k)5
IV T
_
_
r,.-rards(AtL~z-
-
-I
In.
Figure 1.
Test apparatus, Case 8611.
UPPER WALL
J-0.550
CIRCULAR ARC r z427 67-7
96
e/2 %12/
40
x
.
R
1
I29-49
156.88
-t-100--
286.37 LR-9t r-
Dimensions in mm
eanI
Stagna~tion Pressure anJ Tem~peratureLAg,.
ap,/Pe t J.5I
w,.nIce
4±IJ,j
Pressu.re
aL,'L..I
1.0Z L
Holographic1lnatIer,.Stear___-r)(
LAser Velociactte
esax il
F... be.., .a t. lt
1
j
l;%e
Test Configuration, Case 8612.
Figure 2.
462
6.
-'
-
-
Iii
Ilofln
profil.
Bror..ar2 r.±t..
-;r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
.4.
LII
profil.
M-6,
t
ke/I
6.3
10~,/M
Tt 0 280 0 K
xR 0
t
-8,
16, 20, 24-
xx
-x
Measurements
Instrumentation
2%
Pitot tube, reverse Pitot tube
AP
Static pressure probe
AP/P
Total temnperature hot--wire probe
AT t/Tt
=1.5%
Shadowgraph, sch~leren
AU/U
±5%
Figure 3.
2
/P~ -±4%
Case 863]. (Settles et al.,
1979).
Prandt-Meyer 4
Expansion
1.76 6 Adiabatic Wall
0
m, 1
R
,
7
4900
0
Relaxation Test Zone Measurements
Instrumentation
~,U)
Pitot pressure tube
V. T i 1%
Static pressure probe (supplemented by method of characteristics)
TU ± 10% along u2, T', a streamline
Hot-wire stagnation temperature probe, 0.5 w~ dia, L/d -300
Cf van Driest transformed u, "law-of-the-wall" plot, K-0.41
Hot-w~ire 2.5 o dia, Lid -320 Figure 4.
Test configuration, Case 8632. 463
Su RBULENT.
COMPRESSION
FREE SHEAR LAYER
RECIRCULATION
REDEVELOPING S.L.
e~20 60
'40 0 50 30 20 SHEAR LAYER STATIONj
Inis trumentat ion Pitot Probe Static Pressure Probe Hot-Wire Total Temperature Probe Hot-Wire (Normal) 5 widia, L/d
-200
Measurements L~p/p
±4%, ± 10%@ R
tITt/Tt
-0.5%
Figure 5. 'rest configuration for Case 8641.
464
4
4i
"DISCUSSION Flows 8610, 8630,
8640
Fl~ow 8610--Transonic flow over a bumb. Case 8611--The Conference accepted this case a. recommended by the evaluators. Case 8612--The Conference accepted this case but recommended nel flow because the interaction feature of this flow.*
with
the
top wali
is
it
be treated as a Chan-
considered
an essential
Flow 8630--Compressible flow over deflected surfaces. Case
631/2--The Conference accepted these cases as recommended by the evaluators.
Flow 8640--Compressible flow over compression corner with reattaching planar shear layer. Case 8641--The
geometry of this flow case is
similar to Case 8631 but is
at a differ-
ent Mach number. It was accepted by the Conference, althcugh it was hoped that fluctuating measurements will be made and supplied to the data bank in the near future. General Comments 1.
H. V. Meier
(DFVLR):
How can you rely on an accuracy of
15% for skin-friction
measurements it there are no independent checks on that value? In my experience the accuracy of skin-friction measurements made with a Preston tibe is more like
100%. Response: The view of the experimenters was that their Cf vaiues, as measured, were within 15% of the local value. The Conference felt that further discu3sion of the problem of Cf measurement in compressible flows is needed to reach a con-sensus on the true state of affairs.t 2.
Another topic was that concerning the specification of zhe u,'stream conditions. It was concluded that the preferred prcz-edure was to let the computor pick his own starting conditions so that he matches reasonably well the data at the first station as provided from the data set.
[Ed.:
This comment has been incorporated into the specifications.]
tComment added in editing by S. J. Kline: Dr. Meler's skepticism is not unfounded, in my view. The discussacn during the meeting revealed the fact that the aeronautics community, unlike some .)thers, has not normally reported uncertainty values in meaAlso the uncertainties in this volume have been estimated by M. Rubesin and C. Horst-
L"
7
man after the !act for most of the compressible flows. Such estimates are better than no values for uncertainty, but are less satisfactory Lhan estimates made by the data takers, and far less satisfactory than initial control estimates followed by closing the loop to insure experimental control as recommended in the paper by R. J. Moffat in this volume. It is my opinion 'hat if the desired goals of accuracy in data as a basis for modeling and for checking computational outputs for compressible flows, as set forth by M. Rubesin and C. Horstman at several places in this volume are to be achieved, it will be absolutely necessary to incorporate systematic use of uncertainty analysis including feedbacks to check experimental control as suggested by Moffat and also to use redundant instruments. This is clearly a topic that deserves much further careful attention by the research community concerned with compressible flows. 465
S..
.. .. .. . . . r .. . ..
. . . . .. = I•. Z. - .
,
p
.4
SPECIFICATIONS
FOR COMPUTATION
ENTRY CASE/COMPRESSIBLE Flow 8610,
Case ;8611;
Data Evaluators:
Data Takers:
VLm 0410.
W. Bachalo and D. Johnson
Data flvel..torei, N.
TItb.l
and,f C.
W-lty
V1
•
•ar1tian.
Ot AtIt
_____.
Data Tae,.
Toot&is
or
C
C
t.7.r
V
"'rrasooic 7flo
• na
re
I
.,ohe.~
-
I
rreplee
.I
over & fiwip.
dl..
--1
, vohai:orIjI
d±/-.
11.
M. Rubesin and C. Horstman
C,
10i.°=
a.
K_
LV 4t
Other giot*&
"-I Xlc
P/Pi
S
0.2
' 0
S6e.
Plot
over Coapresoslo 0r0.rsr with I..ltachito4 Plamar thsr Layer.'
Moor.
a.,/4cnsu
Come
flow
of Statical too.,redI
-
-
-
-
lay Ar darakop-Irt, T.OILttecwat, ARA dowitatr~o. tovoiopoa.t. VI0*01'4A
1Pt:-o
-
El.
.
,I
l,2S "O
Ordinate
Abscissa
Range/Position
Comments
p/P. P
,c
0
•"
v - --- ,"
'"•
"
-•...
---
''
....
q
NEAR-WAKE FLOW (SUPERSONIC)
AXISYMIETRIC
Flow 8680 Evaluator: by D.
(Prepared
.\
A.
Favre
J.
Cockrell
)
SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Experimental
data
(1978)
flow developing in
for steady
numbers
Reynolds
of of
terms
ensure
were
were
of
near
turbulent
the
mixing
downst
and
or
Large
et
Dussauge
and 3.36
-
and 2 x 10
3
and velocity
The
based on
104,
3
1 x 10
pressure
2.3.
number was
al.
body of
i of a 40-mm-dia.
1.68 x 10
were
flow separation,
,
respec-
gradients
strongly out of equilibrium.
which is
'he nominal
nozzle.
is
boundary
surface of
performed,
is
bE.se wedge, quojected
layer
i03t
total
pressures
in
terms
of
second
layers
for
a the
in
the
0.375
boundary-layer
and
2.3. 0.75
terms
of
x 10 the first
momentum
series
first
of
atmo-
thicknesses
both cases,
In
Two
3
just
for the number
thickness.
tests,
ridges
To were
the model downstream of the nozzle. Fig.
through
fan,
an expansion
forms
by turni-ig and then trarnsforms
recirculation properties
The boundary layer separates from the
1.
accelerated
to a compression
encloses thus only
the
of
was
number
4 and I were 1.68 x 10
for the second.
shown in
is
Mach
at
determined
set at zero
nose section was
eamlined
with a
performed,
thickness,
physical
flow configuration
layer which The
supersonic
3.36 x 104 and 2 x
fully
The
a
numbers,
placed on the lateral
model
described
(1977)
free-stream Mach
flow separation near the base wedge,
of
series; in
in
experiments Reynolds
upstream
is
two tests
of revolution
body
incidence
spheres.
first
the near wake,
al.
CONDITIONS
A 40-mm-dia.
series
the
et
Gaviglio
the fully turbulent boundary layer,
EXPERIMENTAL
angle
in
on upstream momentum thickness.
based
in
exist
of
thickness upstream of
boundary-layer tively,
reported
a supersonic stream for which the
in
revolution
are
zone
of
in
which
the expansion
no
turbulence
region
a
mixing
into a wake. measurements
and the compression
from the mixing layer by The recirculating zone is separated region were conEidered. a randomly fluctuating interface or dividing surface, which in a radial plane becomes a dividing strcamline.
Institut
de Ný4canique Statistique de la Turbulence,
tUniversity cf Leicester Engineering Department,
"['K'
*Note that here
Sin
thi
Gaviglio et al.
momentum
thicknesses
have
Marz:°Ilc, France.
England. been reversed
in
order
(1977). 482
V, %
-.
.
-
from that given
EXPERIMENTAL METhODS Mean-velocity
Two approximations were
ments made by probes that were moderately sensitive to yaw. made
the mean-streamline
to
and
Velocity
temperature
from pressure measure-
and mean streamlines were deduced
profiles
in
derivations
were
fluctuations
to account
order
determined
for
using
the errors which arise as a consequence of anemometer
there was good agreement
that
obliqueness.
0.9-mm-long
platinum-
Gaviglio et al.
plated tungsten hot-wire sensors having a diameter of 3.8 wm. discuss
their
imperfections
(1977)
but show
turbulence intensity measured up-
between longitudinal
results at a similar Mach number obtained
stream of flow separation and corresponding by Kistler. LATER EXPERIMENTAL WORK Later
experimental
sizing the expansion
interactions wave
or
the
work which shock
at I.M.S.T.
performed take
p!sce
wave.
In
the
between two
has been directed
towards
empha-
boundary layer
and either
teat
two-dimensional
parallel
sections
the
models of the flow configuration have been devised in which a wall replaces the dividIn the first teat
ing streamline between the mixing layer and the recirculating zone. the wall is
section,
compressively
deflected ;ccuracy
in
are known. (1981?)
deflected expansively
details
The
6 degrees.
through
turbulence measurement Further
through
of this
and Debieve and Gaviglio
later work
(1981?);
12 degrees,
resulting
improved,
has been
in
flows
the second, are
much
it
is
steadier,
and experimental uncertainties
are given
computational
Duassauge and Caviglio
in
resulto through toe 5-degree
shock are compared w.th experimental data in Debieve (1981?); for further details concerning these three references, apply to the Institut de MScanique Statistique di la 12, Avenue Ggn6ral Leclerc,
Turbulence,
France.
13003 Marseille,
REFERENCES "Bilan de tensiot:s de Reynolds lans une interaction nade de Debieve, J. F. (19817). choc-turbulence," to be published oy C. R. Acad. Sci., Parts. "Shock wave turbulent Debieve, J. F., and J. Gaviglio (1981?). action on a compression corner," to be published
boundary la.--r inte--
"Dersi~y changes and turbulence Dussauge, J. P., J. Gaviglio, and A. Favre (1178). production in the expansion or the compression of a turbulent flow, at supe-isorlic speed," in Structure and Mechanics of Turbulence I11 p. 385, Sprlnger-Verlag. -Interaction Dugsauge, J. P., and J. Gaviglio (1981?). expansion at supersonic speed," to be ptibhiehed.
turbulent
layer
boundary
"Behavior of a Gaviglio, J., J.-P. Dussauge, J. F. Debieve, and A. Favre (1977). Phys. Fluids, turbulent flow, strongly cut of equilibrium, at supersonic speeds, 2-' S179.
.
483
:" ..-
'.
" ..-..
.
.
-.
.
.
..-.
.
....
.... •.
,...-.
..
.
..
.
.
.
-.. .
.......-.
•
_.
•*.•_-• ._..._
- .
.- .-.
,
_
r
Figure 1.
Sketch of the flow (8680).
DISCUSSION Flow 8680 The Conference re'-.owmended that this flow be held In abeyance until the following eat& are received:* 1.
Detailed i-aformation on the flow field upstream of the baae of the model.
2.
Base-pressure measurements.
3.
Un--rrtainty analysis of data.
4.
Details of how the pressure is measured along the wake centerline.
5.
Optical pictures of the flow field.
6.
Circumferential data at base of the model when these data are available. The evalutors will examine this case for possible inclusion in the data bank.
A. Favre agreed to forward these data.
[Ed.:
This flow was not used in the 1981 meeting.] 484
SESSION X
Chairman:
J. McCroskey
Technical Recorders; R. Strawn R. So
Flow 865
Flow 8650 Flow 86600 Flow 86900
485
SHO(Y. WAVF
ROUNDARY-LAYER
-
INTERACTION FLOWS
Flows 8650, 8660, 8600, 8690 Cases 8651, Evaluators:
8661,
8663,
8601,
M. W. Rubesin* and C.
8691 C. Hlorstman*
SUMMARY
SELECTION CRI'LEKTA The existing interactions Reynolds
experimerntn
cover
a rather wide ranga
numbers.
To pick the
experimentb were grouped experiment * *
was
chosen
quality data. boundary either
surements field.
influence had to
basis
test
the
of
the
cases
Finally,
boundary-layer
Mach numbers and
foi" this conference
largeot range
surface
be
precisely
pressure
and mean
measuri-ments
two-dimensionality
all
known
were
had
fluctuating
variation
of
measurements a
flow.
desired.
be quite
such
As a
as
If
well
minimum
had to
the meathe
Mach
documented.
Reynolds
is
Compati-
flow field were
or
flow
the experiment
Although not necessarily the
of
turbulent
throughout
flow profiles
throughout
parameter
and variety
The upstream
defined.
also
to
of variables
dnd downutLeam boundacies
ll.ke experiments was also checked.
mean flov and
turbulent
configurations,
equilibrium and the upper
skin-friction
with other
sired.
experimental
flow field or
the
include
:wo-dime,.sional,
dant,
flow-field
Each flow chosen had to be a well-defined
Surface
bility
of
of shock wave,
into several categories and within each category a perticular
on the
layer had to be in
not
on the behavior
redun-
also
de-
or
the
number
shock-wave strength was an important consideration. -4
Case 8651 in
- Axsymmetrc
this category
*Incident shock Kussoy
wave
and Horstman
The measurements plete
wean
separated
a concentric on
the outer
(1975)
included
flow-field
flcw,3.
Shock Impingement
(Supersonic)
shock-wave surface
was chosen.
of
The
Hot-wire
for
two
generator a -ircular
experimental
surface pressure,
data
" is
shock-wave
to produce
cylinder.
The
a conical
experiment
geometry 's shown
skin-friction
in
and heat-transfer,
strengths
data were also obtained,
used
resulting
in
Fig.
1.
and com-
attached
but the accuracy
by
and
of these data
were not sufficient to be used for compariwzki with computations. Cases 8661, In
8 66 2
this
1 and 8663.
category
experiments were chosen
three
Three-Dimensional flow
fields
for computation.
not finally ,i.ed
the
above
ThQ first .ase
NASA-Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, tThis case was Data Library.
Shock Impingement (Supersonic)
meL
CA
criteria.
Two
(Case 8661)
is
of
the
three
for an oblique
94035.
for the 1980-81
Co:.ference.
It
is,
however,
in
the
486
- -
:::::: ::: ::::::::: ::: ::: :: :: ::: :::: :::: ::::-::: :: ::::: ::::::::: -- :
* - *.
-
I : : .-:-
**.~:~**** -' -
'-'*
. -- . : : - '.
*
j
:: . . :
*
-.
.,
:4
."*
.
.4
i
: ..
-
shock wave boundary-layer
*
M - 3,
interaction
(1976).
at
8663)
chosen Js for a conical shock wave boundary-layer The flow geometries
this case plete Fig.
included:
mean 3.
data
planes.
to mean
addition
and
1975;
1976.]
The
(Case
second case (Case
interaction by Kussoy et ai.
ahown in Fig.
for Case 8661 is
surface-pressure
flot-field In
by Oskam et al.,
[A similar experiment
8662)
(1980).
has been done
by Peake
2.
The measurements for
skin-friction magnitude and direction;
The
surface
flow geometry
and
flow-field
for
Case
data,
the
8663
is
com-
shown
measurements
in
also
include fluctuating data on the windward and leeward data planes. Cases 8601,
8602
Impinged Normal Shock Wave,
.
"Transonic In
-'.
this
category
Matter et al.
(1976);
Kooi
The
for
(1978). this
c.a-qe
two
Speeds
flow
fields
were
flow geometry mean
surface-pressure
the axisymmetric
and
shown in Fig.
4.
skin-friction,
The measurements and
to investigate
the effects
number at constant Reynolds number and variations The flow geometry for Case 8602 is
the two-dimencional experiment obtained at three
of
both
mean and
In addition several experimental data sets of mean
surface and skin friction were obtained
at constant Mach number.
experi.ment
and the two-dimensioaal experiment of
for Case 8601 is
fluctuatirg flow-field parameters.
*
chosen,
Mateer and Viegas (1979),
incrluded
"free-stream Mach
Boundary-Layer Interaction at
of Kooi
(1978).
of variations
in
in Reynolds number
shown in Fig.
5.
This is
Mean-surface and flow-field data were
free-stream Kach numbers resulting
in flow fields with various de-
grees of separation. Case 8691.
Nonlifting, Transonic Airfoil with Shock Separation
Tha experiment by McDevitt et al. ment of were
a
extensive
fluctuating *
transonic
in Fig.
and
airf,.-il
( 1 9 7 6 )t was chosen as the most complete experi-
with a large
include:
shock-separated
surface-pressure,
flow-field data in the separated
region.
skin-friction,
flow region.
and
Tle measurements complete
mean and
The flow geometry is shown
6.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE DATA TAKERS
SWhen an experiment is designed, defined. this -
is
All
boundary
especially
equilibrium boundary
conditions
zritical
for
layer is
care mu3t be taken that the flow field
must be tranlionic
specified, flows.
also important.
is well
or shown not
to be
important;
The establishment
of
an upstream
Experiments should also be designed to
tezt a particular aspect of turbulence modeling when possible.
This case was Data Library. 'See
not
finally used
also Seegmiller et al.
fou the
1980-81
(1978). 487
Conference.
Ic is,
however
in the
-L
Improvements
0
and
hot-wire
ments
in
the
anemometers
. r gathering
boundary layers
layers
occur
tuatiag quantities wall
where
The
guiding
the
expressed
components
mean
theoretical
a
from laser-Doppler
possible to consider these instru-
models
mechanics
with greater walls.
associated suggests
spatial
Redundant Pitot
with
that
improve-
supersoni:
measurement.
resolution when
should
these boundary
be used
Continuing effarts
wind w.thin
measurements of both mean and tubes
are suspect.
applied of
tc measure
the
Reynolds
two-equation modeling strain
utilized
length
scale,
foundation.
measurements,
data
fluc-
to obtain near-
should
be
made
to
the quantities tensor
to models
and turbulent and
oll
stress
stress.
they
that account Efforts
Favre mass-weighting
can.
will be most
for the
should
in
Mea-
useful in lack of
be expcnded
a quantitative
to
manner
comparison of LDV and hot-wire measurements.
equations
as
small
fluid
the Morkovin hypothesis
through the careful
it
the
parameters upon which turbulence-model
also recommended.
through
equilibrium between
Of
of
should be
the
modeling
assess both
studies
makes
of
surface skin-friction measurements.
instruments of all
years,
relatively
LDV measurements
obtain more accurate
-"surements
The
are
interpretation
of turbulence
on the wind-tunnel
.
and
recent
can be performed
-
data
in
data
"ments can be made. "tunnels utilized for
operation
in
second-order
frequency
Two-point
or other measurements
modeling,
scale,
or
the
scale
dissipation
correlation-length
equation,
rate,
has
measurements,
the
or
be
it
weaker
multipoint
directed toward defining better scale equations
in
compressible flow should be attempted. Some thought of modeling, the
should be given to experiments
when some of
models account
will have will
modify
raw data lators seeding will
for
to consider
the
time,
will
no
of
techniques
be
as it
appropriate.
"continuous"
;-uch of
tics of hot wires
data
their meaning.
of
largest
the
relationship
with subsequent computer
longer
so that
contribution
the phase
data-recording
in
lose
the dynamics of the
designed to guide the next generation scales
remaining
for,
analysis.
Studies the largest
The continuous,
scales.
at least,
will require
211
are calculated,
the
These measurements largest scales.
continuous
The use of have
eddies
to
recording
rms meters
be made
can be
to
achieved.
high-frequency-response
should lead to multi-sensor experiments.
and when
Again,
This of
the
or corre-
increase
LDV
Ristograms characteris-
multipoint measure-
ments will be critical. Finally, tigated in is
limited.
three-dimensional
more detail.
flow fields
with and without
separation must be inves-
At present our understanding of three-dimensional
The available experimental
data base is
488
almost nonexistent.
flow fields
tj REFERENCES
t4
Koo.,
3.
(1978).
W.
"Influence
boundary layer interaction,"
Kussoy,
M. I.,
of fLeeestream NLR-MP-78013-U.
and C. C. Horatman (1975).
Mach numbet
on
transonic
shock wave-
"An experimental documentation of a hyper-
Eonic shock-wave turbulent boundary-layer separation," NASA TM X62,412.
interaction
flow
-
with
and
without
K,.asoy, M. I., '!. C. Horstman, and J. R. Viegas (1980). "An experimental and numerical investigation of a 3-D shock separated turbulenit boundary layer," Paper 800002, AIAA 18th Aerospace Science Meeting, Jan. 14-16, 1980, Pasadena, CA. M'-teer, G. G., A. boundary-layer D.C..
Brosh, and interaction
J. R. at t
Mateer, J. G., and J. R. Vl'2gas normal shock-wave/turbulent Williamsburg, VA. :TcUevttt, J. B., L. L. Levy, thick circular-arc airfoil,"
Viegas .nsonic
(1976). speeds,
"A normal-shock-wave turbulent AIAA Paper 76-161, Washington,
(1979). "Effect ot Macn and bounddry-layer interaction,"
Jr., and G. S. Deiwert (1970). AIAA Jou., 14(5), 606-613.
Reynolds numbers on a AIAA Paper 79-1502,
"Transonic
flow about a
Oskam, B., S. M. Bogdonoff, and I. E. Vas (.75). "Study of three-dim"ensional flow fields gene_-ated by the interaction of a skewed shock wave with a turbulent boundary layer," AFFDL-TR-75-21.
Oakam,
B.,
I.
E.
boundary layer AFFDL-TR-76-48.
Vas,
and
S.
iatetactions
M. Bogdonoff in
thcee
(1976).
dimensions
"Oblique a,
Mach
shock wave/turbulent 3,"
parts
I
and
II,
Peake, D. J. (1976). "Three-dimensional swept shock/turbulent boundary-layer separations with control by air injection," Aeronautics Report LR-592, Notional Reseqrch Council, Canada. Rubesin, M., A. F. Okuno, L. L. Levy, Jr., J. B. McDevitt, and H. L. Seegmiller '1976). "An experimental computational investigatlon of the flow field Pbout a traitaonic airfoil in super-critical flow with turbulent boundary layer separation," Tenth Congress of the International Council of the AeronauticAl Sciences, Ottawa, Canada, October 3-8. H. L., J. G. Marvin, and L. L. Levy, Seegmiller, transonic flow," AIAA Jou., 16(12), 1260-1270.
J-.
(1978).
"Steady and
.
unsteady
4
.. i' .'2" .-i " ""i'. " -.. i-.i-i . ." -.
i: '-489
Table
.
Uncertainty Estirmates for Cases 8651, 8661, 8663, 8601, 8691 Case No. 8651
Quantity
Uncertainty 10%"
Pw W_ w
± 15%
iqw
j± 10%
U(y)
t 3Z
U(y)
reversed flow region G5
-
± 12%
p(y) 8661
•
8663
Pw±
1%
c±
10%
U(y)
± 2%
C,(y)
±0.20
Pw
8691
5%
TwW
t 15%
U(y)
±3%
ai(y)
± 0.5
-~2 12 (wJ -2,/ 1-2 ý12 •vJ, (uj,
±1•5%
u
8601
35%
W.• ,•-
'
± 15%
(uv
Pw±
5%
w
±15%
U(y)
± 3%
p uv
± 15%
C
± 0.02%
p Cf
±15%.
U(y)
± 4%
uu2 + v2
±8%
uv
± 8%
490
................................
.
.
.
SI
-
3
6.
2.5cm6.8,
.-
Z,5cm
"---
Re6
0.4 x 106
-
330cm CM \20,ýý
S,
d'3m
81 rcm P..
*Iio
64.4TP
T)PICAL
cm
'I'SrRLW EN TA':, ý.1
TANGENT
?
"T,
POINT VARIABLE
14()-165 cm !00
50
0
150
X,cm Figure I.
Test configuration,
Case 8651.
S-' •:CIO
DATA =
"
---------
I
•,PLANE
.4
=..1
M.
UPSTREAM BOUNDARY LAYER
Figure 2.
C&se 8661,
2.
6.
0.51
6 0.2 x 10
Fe6-
three-dimensional shock impingement. ,491
.
..
cm,
424
INSTRUENTAT
ENPOTEBD
ý
SUPPRTE
41
1501
Figure 3b.Ov
detaeileof seral
test configuration, Case 8663.1
4924
M=.. 1.3-1.5,
6.
2.5 cm,
R
- 8.5-225 x 106,
R
- 3.3-6.0 x 106
SHOCK GENERATOR DIAM
Figure 4.
Experimental test configuration, Case 8601.
P.4
L
ý49 7 1/
/ -
Fiue ts/ 7 7" 7• 7 7-/ 7 7 .Exeiena
-/ C111e 8602. 7 .1 / / oniurto
M.. 1.4-1.46, 6. Re6= - 0.3 x 106
Figure 5.
Experimental test configuration,
Case 8602. .
N•
493.'"
..
-; ' 7 2//•-
..
1 cm,. %
Ný BEL LMOUTH
ý
IO
ýCIý
ýS
-
AcI
TRANSLATING WEDGE
I
-2
1I
0
2
1
3
4
6
5
X/c
M.- Q.785,
Figure 6.
Rec
1-
1ok gnparatian. Case 869i, inonlifting traK1Aonic airfnil with a.,
'494
10 6 .
L
DISCUSSION
Flows 8650 and 8660 Cases 8651 and 8661: I wish to comment on the necessity of specifying stagnation and static
M. Morkovin:
temperatures
that arise
There are hidden uncertainties
the boundary layers.
in
from unknown thermal fields in flows of this kind. The total tfamperature
C. Horstman:
This infor-
field was measured at each profile.
included in the data file.
mation is
The data libary will record all the data supplied by the experimenters,
S. Kline:
not
only the information required for specifications. shock inter-
I am concerned about flow-field steadiness in boundary-layer
G. Settles: actions.
We never see perfectly steady fl..'"
criterion
by which we could
judge the flow
in rhe free stream.
there some
Is
end does Case 8651 meet
steadiness,
this criterion? C.
However,
steadiness.
and
sepa-ation
Whenever
Horstman:
reattachment
are
confined,
not
although the separation Is unsteady,
one
sees un-
the 3hock position is
steady. K. Owen:
There are large-scale motions for unconfined separation in almost all exper-
iments. This large-scale unsteadiness will lence quantitie.s. A.
Favre:
How was the Reynolds-stress
component
influence the measurement of turbu-
measured?
We measure it
with cross
The
uncertainty
wires. C.
Reynolds
The
Horstman:
itress was
measured
with a
"V" wire.
obtained was within 7-8% of the integrated velocity profiles upstream. Flows 8600 and 8690 Cases 8601,
8602, and 8691.
M. Firmin:
What are the two-dimensiotiality checks on the airfoil experiment?
M. Rubesin:
Oil-streak
flowgraphs were used.
There was only a one-inch section on
each end of the airfoil which wa$ not two-dimensional. R.
Melnik:
field surveys could be made rather flow to
Perhaps flow-
One should really have a better test of two-dim isionality.
simply
tunnel wall,
the
look
flow is
no
longer
It
than oil flowgraphs. If
two-dimensional.
a shock wave
not enough for a
is
interacts
with a windfor both the
This applies
two-dimensional.
airfoil and the Kooi experiment.
495
. .
.%' .
..
.
.
.
. .
M. Rubesin:
Calculations were run for the Knoi experiment. but
agree,
was consistent with other known
the disagreement
perimentR.
It
The results did not quite
was concluded
that
two-dimersionil
effects are
three-dimensional
not
too
ex-
(:erious
in this flow. R.
Melnik:
the
Wan
wave?
It
shouldn't be if
M. Rubesin:
Yes,
J.
I
Viegas:
to
downstream assumed
pressure
be
tho
behind
pressure
shock
the
there are three-dimensional effects present.
the downstream pressure was used.
have
used
the
downstream
pressure
in
my
experiments,
and
it
has been
i.
The geom-
satisfdctory. H.
McDonald:
I
etry
the
2.
of
Mesh
question the use of
definition
"important
for
In
agreed
S.
This is
Bogdonoff:
Is
the vicinity
flow.
8601,
this
ered ab a tube M. Rubesin:
a special
3.
of
Since
flow for three reasons:
mesh generator
the
this
leading is
edge
not a
in order
to be
seems
be
practical
the calculation
interaction
flow or can it
of
needs
to be made
a shock with a
be represented
in
the shock really standing
Data in
measuring
airfoil
design,
it
boundary
layer
should
by a two-dimensional
It
is
be consid-
flow?
a tube-flow case.
explain the three-dimensional Marvin:
particularly
a circular duct.
still
in
the tube
flow of Kooi?
as though it should be an unstable (unsteady) configuration.
J.
to
computed.
tc, find funding for the computations.
Case
that
in
this
will be difficult
"G.Lilley:
require
flow wIll
the McDevitt
it
looks
Gould thiE possibly
effects?
the experiment v.ere obtained by slowly moving the shock across
instruments.
Static-pressure
the
measurements did not show any significant
"large-scale movemea&~s. M. Rubesin:
I
doubt that computations will be
ter of shock waves.
"S. Bogdonoff: In
It
to handle
usually gets smeared out in
I am concerned with problems
my experience,
able
in
the high-frequency
jit-
these schemes.
stabilizing
the position
of the shock.
I've had trouble doing stabilizing normal shocks.
Further Discussion on Flows 8650,
8600, 8690
8660,
Case 8651 The Conference
* ever,
that this
is
agreed to recommend
Case 8651
a special case relating
as a
test case.
to a high Mach
It
was
noted,
how-
number flow with relatively
high uncertainties.
Cases 8661, After
8662, and 8663 lengthy
Conference without ,,..
I
0
0
° 0
°~
0
01
I000
'i0.0
1
79.1
0
36.2
.
100 0 0,
o
0.
~
0' 0
-2.3
0o:•
°
°
-4-
0
,0
0
I00
.
0
rr
I
I ¶0
-2.5 •k0
0.005 0.010
0.005 0.01
0.005 0.010
0.005 0.010
PLOT 10 CASE 0471 FILE 2
.9
(2.0
°.00
000-
0
00
0.8g
L
-0.2
0
0.2
"x/L .°.
,
565
-
.
-•.
PLOT
.1 CASE 0471 FILE 19
.
0.7
0
0
"
0
p/m."00'00 S~~P/PT
I
0.6
I]
. -.
0.5 -J' -0.2
0
0.2
x/L
PLOT 12 CASE 0471 FILE 36
0.9
00
-082 .
0 .
.
-
.
-0.2 4-
. . . ..
.
.
.
. .
. .
x/L
0.2 .
.
..
.
0 .
RELAMINARIZING FLOWS Flow 0280 0282
Cases 0281,
K. R. Sreenivasan
Evaluator:
SUMMARY
INTRODUCTION Relaminarization
right pnysics is
classes
rendered the
flow.
relaminarization
flows have
of
flow is
turbulent
its capability for predicing accurately the succession of stages that
a relaminarizing
Although
a process by which an initially
An extreme test of whether a turbulence model incorporates
laminar.
effectively
occur in
is
in
occurs
been documented
a
in
wide
variety
sufficient
of
only
circumstances,
these classes of
detail;
two
flows
form the subject of discussion here. INCOMPRESSIBLE ACCELERATED TURBULENT BOUNDARY LAYER
CASE 0281.
layer developing at constant
A turbulent boundary up to
walls)
wind-tunnel
x0 is subjected
This can be accomplished,
beyond xo.
acceleration
a point
pressure
to a
sustained
for example,
desired shape on the opposite wall of the wind tunnel (Fig. the boundary
layer
tends
asymptotically
to
a
laminar
on one of the
steep,
streamwise
by fixing a liner of Experiments show that In the
past,
nearly
1980).
Selection Criteria (i)
Initial
It
conditions:
boundary layer be self-preserving in
1).
state.
thirty flows of this type have been studied (see Sreenivasan, a.
(say,
a calculation
method,
desirable that t'e initial
in constant pressure;
not directly measured,
tively high degree of confidence. few thousands)
is
are also desirable
state of the tuebulent
those initial functions needed
can then be prescribed with a rela-
High initial Reynolds numbers (Re of the order of a because this eliminates the possibility of
fying relaminarization in this class of flows with low-Reynolds-number (ii)
effects.
The flow must then be subjected to dustained slep
Flow conditions:
identl-
accel-
eration so that a succession of states from the fully turbulent to the truly laminar occurs. (iii)
At least all mean flow parameters (including the skin fric-
Measurements:
tion) and profiles af Reynolds stresses (both normal and shear) should he measured at close intervals during acceleration,
Dept.
Engineering and Appl.
Science,
especially
in the region of maximum Cf. where a
Yale University,
New Haven,
CT
06520.
567
.'
S "-. '-'••'.i -••- • •--••-./ ii-.- Rcr and R2 < Rcr
Sfr,,,. one diameter or width to another
say,
where Rcr is
an appropriate
critical
Reynolds
an approaching
number,
turbulent
flow
will revert to the laminar state. a.
Selection Cciteria
reasons
For similar
as
cited in
it
Case 0281,
is
desirable
that
the
Narasimha and Sreenivasan
flow upstream of expansion be fully developed.
turbulent
(1979)
have
L
shown that Lhe beat estimate of Rcr (based on average section velocity and pipe radius Thus, the initial Reynolds numbers must be substantially or channel width) il 1500. greater than 150C; the larger the difference is
(Rcr
-
R2 )1 the faster (in
terms of x/D)
the laminar state effectively attained. Th.
angle
of
divergence
in
the
expanding
small to ensure that no flow separation occurs.
section
should
be kept
sufficiently
Other comments made on measurements
in Case 0281 hold here too.
568
..............................
'-. "-..--." :. .....: ..-.. •-.-• .. :"::•:::•............................................................. •:ii:-•-::::-•..:
Flow Selected
b.
*
flows
Relaminarizing Sibulkin
(1962) not
do
tions
this
of
class
any
basic
difference
In terms of both thoroughness
flows.
an examination of the instrumentation)
relaminarizing
between
and accuracy
Laufer
and
(1962)
These investiga-
in a channel.
in pipes and by Badri Narayanan (1968) reveal
by
reported
been
haie
and
channel
pipe
(as judged by scatter ýn data and
Laufer's flow is chosen hern as the best avail-
able test case.
"ACCURACY OF Since
MEASUREMENTS the measurements
streamwise velocity,
of
interest
here
concern
only
nean paraweters
Vie great-
the accuracy of measurements must be generally good.
est uncertainty rests with skin-friction measurements (where made);
and rms
note that In Ca3e
0282, or in any comnarable flow, no reliable skin-friction measurements are available. Typical
accuracy
esttmates
claimed
by Simpson and Wallace
(or
estimated
from other
given information) are:
i*I
± 1/2%, 1
Mean velocity
U
Streamwise rma fluctuation
(u-)1/2 f
Skin-friction coefficient
-
-
L..
± 1%
± 20%
REFERENCES "An experimental study of reverse transition in twoBadri Narayanan, M. A. (1968). dimensional channel flow," J. Fluid Mech., 31, 609. "Decay of non-isotropic turbulent field," in Miszellaneen de angeLaufer, J. (1962). wandte Mechanik, Festschrift Walter Tollmien, Akademic-Verlag, Berlin. "Relaminarization
and K. R. Sreenivasan (1979). Narasimha, R., Advances in Applied Mechanics. 19, 221.
of
flows,"
fluid
"Some observations on skin-friction and velocity Patel, V. C., and M. R. Head (1969). profiles in fully developed pipQ and channel flow," J. Fluid Mech., 38, 181. M. (1962).
Phys.
flow,"
to laminar
"Transition from turbulent
Fluids,
*
Sibulkin, 280.
*
"Laminarescent turbulent boundary Simpson, R. L., and D. B. Wallace (1975). experiments on sink flows," Project SQUID Report SMU-l-PU. "A guide ti., the data in relaminarizing flows," Sreenivasan, K. R. (1980). pared for the Stanford 1980/1981 Conference.
5,
layers: %
Report pre-
569
'.-
*"
....
• .-..
.-
--..
.
.
"'.
.
..
.
.-
.
-
.
..
.
.
.
.
U
Oncoming conntant-pressure turbulent boundary layer
Relarninarizing boundary layer
/
,.
" " .
I
",
Ii
/ /
Wind-tunnel
Figure
/'
.'
Lner
test section
1. Scnematic of experimental apparatus for producing compressible turbulent boundary layer-.
relaminarizarion
of
in-
*-
Small divergence angle
-
Flow
"Fully developed" turbulent pipe or channel flow SR (= 1500) 1 cr (R -Ua/v)
Figure
2.
R < R 2 cr ("Subcriticai" flow)
Schematic of experimental apparatus cal pipe or charnel flow.
for producinig reluminarizing
subc,:iti-4
570
-
,
"
.
-.
,
. ,
"
DISCUSSION
Flow 0280 Conijensus was reached by the Conference rnamely debired; lish
Simpson and however,
Wallace
(1975)
that of the twv test cases recommended,
and Laufer
(1962)
they are the best we have.
"limits" for turbulent hehavior and are
were not documented
as fully as
they are sufficient to estab-
Moreover,
thus important checks.
Hence,
the Con-
ference recommended that the two different classes of flow involving relaminarlzing be usEd as test cases.
Certain
written
layers betueen
Dr.
P.
discussion N.
Inman
on
the. data
(Imperial
evaluation
College,
for
London)
relaminarizing
and Dr.
K. R.
boundary
Sr enivasan
'-egarding future experiments appears important to place on record: P.
N. Irman:
I agree
that
the
"pre-laminarescent"
state should be represented,
and
the existing data sets constitute sufficient information to test ,he performance of turbulence models. The ability to predict the approach to relarninarization tt an essential part of a relaminarization model, so that it is desirable that test cases should start in the fully turbulent regime. Although many n( the existing data have shortcomings, in terms both of quantities measured and of flow quality (especially
iments
two-dimensional ity),
which may be difficult
the
to
report of Dr.
perform.
At
Sreenivasan sugg;ests
least
Ln
low-speed
new exn~er-
flow.
••
without.'
body forces, relaminarization cannot be separated from low Reynolds number effects, since RE always falls well below thn upper limit of low Reynolds number effects (say, Re - 5000) before relamina ization occurs; in relaminarization induced by pressure grad'ients, Re usually fallb to 300-400. The approach to
%
relaminarization from high initial R3 (> 2500, say) is particularly difficult to reproduce in a conventional winu tunnel. To pr( ce R, - 2500 require3 an initial length of order 1 m at Ue - 15 m/s. and a wedge K - ",/Ue(dUe/dX) 3 x 10Also in a "uedge flow" values of angle, say, of 20', implies a tunnel hzight of only 0.12 m and an effective wedge length of only 0.3 m. This length is unlikely to be long enotigh -o give a reasonable range of x/,initial. Dr. Sreenivasan's requirement that the boundary-layer thickness should be not more than 1Z of the tunnel height also causes problems, for then the wedge angle must 'e greater than 55'. Increasing the wedge angle (oz more generdlly shortening the region of pressure drop) allows higher saeeds and higher initial R0, but must be traded against the length of the relaminarization region and the possibility of curvature effects in the outer part of the boundary layer. Also, cross-flows In the tunnel side walls become increasingly violent leading to departures from two-dimensionality of the test bounday layer on the tunnel floor. Th.. constrairts discussed above probably account for the lack of expetiments with initial Ra > 2500. The existing data explore the readily attainabl'_
(Ed.:
Reworded for clarity, hopefully, without change of emphasis.] 971
.
-
--
*
.
. *. -. . . .
.
combinati'.ns
*. .
and
.
".
.
*.
.
the envelope of
*
*
test conditionr
..
-
.
•
.
is
nerhaps
.
unlikely
.
to be
.
.
exten-
•
I
-
ded much in the near future. It would be unwise to argue that because the more extreme conditions cannot be easily obtained in wind tunnels, they will never occur in practice, but future experimenters should be encouraged on better exploration of the easily attainable range of relaminarizing flows than on attempts to produce flows with high Re and high K. K.
R.
Sxeenivasan.
Firstly,
I
agree
that
computing
the
fully
turbulent
"pre-
laminarescent" region provides a challenge to computors, but I want to emphasize that the ability to predict the "pre-laminarescnt" flow is not a necessary prerequisite for a successful prediction of the later stages of relaminarization. In the latter case, it is enough to be able to, say, switch off the production of turbulent energy at the appropriate ooint and merely recognize that further downstream turbulent stresses play no significant role in determining the mean flow dynamics. Unless a model grossly violates the physics (see Narasimha and Sreenivasan (1973), J. Fluid Mech., 61, 417), it is unlikely that the outcome exhibiLs strong sensitivity t- the details of the model. This simplicity (which is nevertheless complicatei enough to be sufficiently challenging) is due to the fact that relaminarization is an asymptotic study asymptotic limits in general.
case.
That
is,
of
course,
-
"< 1
',
why we
Secondly, it is not correct to say that relaminarization in accelerated turbulent boundary layers cannot be seiparated from low Reynolds nunber effects. It is not trut that R0 it. always about 300-400 whenever relaminarization occurs.
1
..
There ire experiments that show the contrary (Patel and Head (1968), J. Fluid Me:h,., 34, 371; Blackwelder and Kovasznay (1912), J. Fluid Mech., 53, 61). I believe. this will also be the outcome in future experiments with higher initial R6 . We both agree these experiments will be difficult to perform. I believe we need to resort to experiments in a large enough wind-tunnel, capable of producing without acceleration-pzodicing devices, such as a liner, a constant-pressure boundary layer with Re iu0,000. Hence when a liner is added, we may have a chance to obtain a ralaminarizing boundary layer with an initial Re of the order of 3000-4000. Lastly, 1 'inbelieve smiller values of 6/h, than are usual, are essential to due to possible normal pressure-gradient effects eliminate momentum imbal'nce, induced by flow curvature but I do not wish to stick to 6/h = 10-2 as a steadfast rule. This rule calls for a large wind-tunnel heighc and therefore a large wind tunnel. Your calculationE are rseful but may be misleading in the context you use them. Large R0 and moderatŽi wedge angles are not incowpatible, if we do not insist on large K. I dc not care to stipulate the attainment of large K and high R6 ; I believe large X is neither necessary nor sufficient for relaminarization. Incidentally, we can always produce targe values of K by resorting to nonlinear wedges. Locally large wedge angles do not produce important cross-flow e'fects is long as 6/h is small enough (see Badri Narayaran and Ramjee (1969), J. Fluid Mech., 35, 225-241).
I
572
~7.-4i
FOR COMPUTATTON
SPECIFICATIONS
ENTRY CASE/INCOMPRESSIBLE Case #0281;
)ata Evaluator:
Data Takers:.
R. L.
K.
R. Sreenivasan
Simpson and D. B. Wallace
PICT[•r AL $L10wY Flow 0250
K. 1. Ir.
Date Nvoloalorl
a
velocity
"Ia4 a.I|.riat.| Plo.".
ftn.
0 f e r 0r N ""1I
.
Turhbolnco Profiles
dphd. Pv Coe* Date Taker
C..
Test Ri Goofttry
r
"
N .. ...rd V.401.
J
I
-
or W
0101 ais
Otth.g Is
-
I.
C'
i
1
2342
Other Not.. Io..n
(based O. Wallatce
Plot
,...,4.1st
Ordinate
Abscissa
Range/Position
x
2.235 < x < 4.846 m
Re
x
2.235 < x < 4.8L6 m
Ue =Ue(x)
2.235 < x < 4.846 m
2
3
C C
x
4
YUe/V
U/Ue
"e
YU/
5
-12
YUe/V
(u 2 )
aft
ref
x
-
/V
-
1
2.718,
Ue
at
x a 2.2
3
5 m.
2.992,
3.486, 3.785 m.
0 < U/Ue < 1
x - 4.239, 4.604, 4.693,
20,000
OYU
r..
Comments
0 < U/Ue< 1 < YUe/V < 20,000
U/Ue
1yer a.".Pogip. lar
ad:.8r m ado: o re • .•.
4.846
in.
/2/ /U
e
0 ( (u)
/Ue
> eTT',
of
the
etc.').
complete
AD-HOC COMMITTEE NO.
3
Report of the Working Group on Free-Shear Layers Chairman: F. Chamiagne R. Childs Recorder: Members:
S. P. A. R.
Birch Bradshaw Hussain Luxton
H. V. B. 1. K.
Nagib C. Patel Quinn 'Aygnanski Yen
The committee disciissed: "What
is needed to
the near zone
fully specify the initial conditions for
of a free-shear
layer in
order to be
sure we can
compare data with computiations?" T7he free-shear layer or mixing layer will be classified into two categories: planar and 1.
(ý)axisymmetric.
Planar Case a)
o
Specification of Copttoa U
-
U(x,y)
x
-
streamwtse coordinate
y
mean
of
-direction
shear;
eurd
of
height
computational
should be at least greater than 5 shear-layer 1-(Ul
or xX, w~here clature.
-
U 2 )f(Ul + U2 )
domain
thicknesa..ec,
liaing Birch's nomen-
Tiis choice of height should be sufficient for the
vertical ve-'ocity
fluctuations
to vanish and also may ease
any tranapir.3tional boundary conditious iiaroduced to avoid pressure graIlienta. z b)
-
spanwise coordinate; at beuat xX.
Initial Conditions: (1)
A flat-plate, boun'Iary
zero-pressure-gradient
l.ayer
trailing edge..
characterized
by
equilibrium
R() just
turbulent
upstream
of
the
RO chould be greater than 500, and possible
Reynolds nu!i~ber effects on the outer layer may exist for
R.
< 5000. (2)
Laminar
boundary
profille all, (3)
layer--a
good approximation to a Blasius
say, 56 upstream of the trailing edge.
Avoid disturbed boundary layer, artificially
induced
i~xcept for well-documented,
disturbances which may conceivably
useful for time-dependent methods.
..................................................
be
(1)
c)
Free-Stream Turbulence: (1)
If
the
initial
"turbulence" 0.5%,
boundary
in not
layer
likely
is
to
be
turbulent, important
free-stream if
less
tnan
with the possible exception of coupling with acoustic
modes and instabilitics of mixing layer. (2)
If
the initial boundary layer is
laminar,
transition in the
free-shear layer may be affected by free-stream turbulence. d)
Defirition of Trailing Edge--Geometry: (1)
For a one-stream case,
there is
no difference with or with-
out an end plate. (2)
For a two-stream caae,
a maximum included angle of 3' for a
trailing edge with a resulting trailing-edge thickness bein6 an order of magnitude less than the boundary-layer momertum thickness. 2.
Axi-Symmetric Case The computations should be limited to
planar mixing layer; D is
x < 2D,
the .iozzle exit diameter.
if
the obje-t is
to simulat(
a
The initial boundary--layer momen-
tum thickness should be at least two orders of magnitude less then the diameter of the jet nozzle
to allow
full
development
before
the onset of
"a):isymmetrwr"
effects
at
x2D.
riI
589
!i!!:ii!iiii~!!!•iii!iiii!!i !i!i~!i-
. ~~ii
• -.
lm•i!" . . -.i -•
• !• i~ i!
AD-HOC COMMITTEE NO. 4 Report of the Working Group on Turbulence Management and Control of Large-Eddy Structure Chairman: H. Nagib Recorder: R. W'rtp, a I Members:
In in
view of recent
S. D. F. J. J. J.
Bogdonoff Bushnell Champagne Eaton Ferziger Gerrard
importance,
ble influence of the results of the eddy structure control.
ary
their
are
"r 'r for
recommends
sensitivity to
layers
with
v8rialillf
the
controlled
removing
the of
the
and
Lneve
flow-manipulation
butnio
of
that
initial
in
free-shear range
excitation or
evolution
,.-
:*
-
as well as in
wall boundof
of
some
techniques a
schemes be tested for
some of the above cases, layers
particular,
with
it
is
mean flow and the
initial conditions which depart of
the
depend
more
successful
on
detailed
will be required.
Nagib
-
1*
-
-
of
of the
e.g.,
shear
flow manipulators
suggested
that
turbulence
intensi-
the
from the equilibrium
erperiments.
modifications description
990
.'
layers,
boundary
In
of the
H.
.
management and control of large-
from enhanced mixing to augmentation
for
structures.
range of
energy,
including spectral data,
on large-
conditions
representative
turbulent
Conference and these experiments
the advanced computer-prediction
initial
downstream
cases
the possi-
surface drag.
large-scale
Lies be pr'.icted for a are
found
poF'-ible applications
heat transfer to reduction in
"The group
980-81
the above group met to discuss
Examples of this research in
turbulence structures
layers;
Klebanoff LaRue Morel Sandborn Wygnanski
successful attempts at manipulation of the turbulence structure
flow fields of technological
scale
P. J. T. V. I.
the
Since most spectral
Initial
of
distri-
conditions,
I CLOSING DISCUSSION
The Chairmen reports,
and
of the Ad-Hoc Committees
this
was
followed
by
and each Session Chairman presented their
the closing discussion
on Ad-Hoc
Committees
and
Sessions I through XII. REPORTS FROM AD-HOC COMMIITTEES Ad-Hoc Committee No.
1--Hot-Wire Anemometry at Low Mach Numbers
B. Newman reported Lhe results of the committee meeting on hot-wire uncertainties at low Mach numbers and a comparison of laser and hot-wire performance. Questions: P.
Bradshav:
Why do we not use pure platinum wires?
B. Newman: They lack strength. P. BradshAw: Does the lack of a continuous signal
in air with an UDV preclude some
spectral measurements? F.
Durst:
It
depends on the frequencies of interest.
Ad-Hoc Committee No. E.
Reshotko
sonic/supersonic
2--Use of Hot-Wire Anemometers in Compressible Flows
reported on the discussion concerning the use of hot wires in tran-
the available calibration
methods are questionable for sheared flows. so continued hot-wire use is
temperature/density information,
little
and that
He noted the need for very high frequency rerponse,
flows.
An LDA gives
recommended.
Questions: M. Morkovin: bers,
Noted the existence of large scatter of hot-wire data at high Mach num-
particularly
ia
the transonic
range.
He also said the derivation of the
calibration method involves assumptions which make these measurements very uncertain. C. Horstman:
15% uncertcinty would be good here for any hot wire data.
Ad-Hoc Committee No.
3--Free-Shear Layers
C
H. Nagib renorted the discussions regarding the initial conditions for free-shear layer
experiments and computation.
The
extreme
sensitivity
of free-shear layers
disturbances in the initial region was once again noted. Questions: B. Cantwell: P.
Bradshaw:
B. Ramaprian: J. Eaton: P.
WF/ax would be small for large channels anyway. How may a good future experiment be set up?
How was
Bradshaw:
*[Ed.:
Could the channel be divergent to compensate for pressure effects?
Ree - 500
chosen?
From Coles' wake-parameter curve.
See also the conclusions to this volume." 591
•.-
- --: ':.:...
. -
''.....:.
L
: .°'
- -"-'°
.-.
.
-. ---
.- " -. -
- "-?'--
*--i~
.
-
-"
to
S.
Luxton:
The Committee is
trying to give a general guide,
although the conclusions
are not well documented. A minimum R9 of 1000 would be better!
S. Kline:
Low R. is needed for rapid development.
P. Bradshaw:
Ad-Hoc Committee No.
4--TurbuleLice Management and Control of Large-Eddy Structure
The report of this ad-hoc committee was received but there was no further discussion.
REPORTS FROM SESSION CHAIRMEN Reports
from Sessions
I,
II,
VII,
111,
and
X11
were
received
but
invoked
no
further comment from the Confei'ence. Session IV - W. 0.
reynoLds, Chairman
The laminar-flow numerical checks have been withdrawn; to demonstrate mesh-independence
asked
Instead cnmputors will be
by u3sng two different
Specifications
grids.
for Case 0111 will be alt2red. questions: How should code set-up be documented?
J. Murphy:
The Evaluating Committee has yet to decide if
S. Kline:
We will rely on feedback from the Evaluatlon
the Questionnaire will be needed.
See also discussion in Session IV.
Committee and the two teams on "numerics." W. McNally: W. Reynolds:
F.
Computors may not he able to double their grid density. Grid density can always be halved. Does Dr.
G. Lilley:
more information than that in
Gessner propose changes to his specifications?
Gessnel . ';,.t
Session V - A. Roshko, Chairman
"The complete
circular
cylinder
(non-elliptic)
has
been recommended
calculation
quality but are limited in
will
e-tent--only
be
as an entry test case,
requested.
centerplane
* "fuser
in
the
data bank but is
not emphasized
data
data are available.
sure data and total drag are needed for the ellipsoid. retained
Ellipsoid
for which a are
high-
Also,
pres-
Hence the ellipsoid should be
for computation at this
time.
flows might all be optionally computed as boundary-layer flow only if The Samuel-Joubert data should be considered as a boundary layer.t
[Ed.:
Dif-
desired.
This reply has been extended in editing for clarity.]
.'•Ed.: The Samuel-Joubert flow is listed as a simple case (boundary-layer flow). Diffuser flows can be calculated as computors desire or their codes dictate; that is, "as fields or as boundary layers. In no case is the method or computation (field or Indeed, we hope that both approaches will be zonal) specified for the 1981 meeting. used so that we can obtain direct comparisons for evaluation.)
"-'•
592
i.....................
Questions: G. Lilley:
Was the Wadcock flow d.scussed?
A. Roshko:
Yesl
P. Saffman:
7
A. Wadcock may improve the specification of wall conditions.
One should not distinguish steady and unsteady turbulent flows--computors
can consider the flow as they wish. J, Hunt: Why do some data sets not have unsteady data?* G. Xellor: Unsteadiness may be unambiguously defined. A. Perry:
Phase-averaged
flows are difficult to specify and must be operationally
specified. J. Johnston:
Simpson's case is not the only diffuser case; AshJaee's data do not have turbulence but could be useful. S. Kline: I will not recommend Ashjaee's diffuser data since they are our own data, and the data evaluator has not included them. Session VI - E. Reshotko, Complete
Chairman
geometry and initial
conditions for the predictive cases.
conditions will be provided,
but no downstream
Technical oversight of predictive cases will be
provided and is being arranged.
"J. Hint: *'
J. Kim:
Complete hardware and geometry must be specified. Elliptic codes need downstream data for backetep.
P. Bradshaw:
There is no upstream influence in the backatept A status report on each predictive case should be maintained.
W. Reynolds:
*
"J. Eaton:
Reports are planned,
but
even if
some predictive data are not obtained
computations may be compared. Session VIII - H. Nagib, Chairman P. Saffman:
The flows presented by J. Ferziger are not really homogeneous
flows,
so
actual wind-tunnel conditions would be desired. J. Ferziger:
The recent data are very nearly homogeneous,
but many cases have actual
conditions documented. R. Narasimha:
Self-similarity
should not be an input
to the calculation for wall
Jets; this should come out of the computation.
S*[Editor's
note regarding unsteadiness: Many cases involve a request for computation of fluctuations; that is, turbulence and implicitly unsteadiness owing to shocks or flow detachment. As a means of defining a manageable domain for evaluation, flows with unsteady mainstreams have been omitted from this conference. As noted elsewhere, L. Carr and J. McCroskey are tablulating unsteady flows, and they might profitably be addressed in another meeting.] 593 ".L
•
S. Bogdongff.and J. McCroskey,
Sessions IX, X Measurements
for
However,
uncertain.
high-speed
flows,
Chairmen
especially
wall-skin
friction,
are
the trends are reliable and the data should be useful in
highly judging
computer results. A clear distinction between the accuracy of data in
M. Morkovin:
low- and high-speed
necessary and should be flagged.
flow is S. Bogdonoff:
Uigh-speed flows give a better test of turbulence models in some cases
and are very important for this reason and also technologically. Highly uncertain data will not provide a good test for turbulence models.
S. Kline:
J. McCroskey:
This may well
Kline:
S.
Skin-friction uncertainty in high-speed flows has been over-emphasized. be so.
Nevertheless,
the
relatively
large uncertainty
of
high-speed data should be flagged as Morkovin recommends. Session XI - P.
Bradshaw,
Chairman
The CAST 7 case has been discarded. MISCELLANEOUS TOPICS Evaluation Committee
-
H. W. Emmons,
C. Lilley read H. W. Emmons'
Chairman
report (see oelow)
and asked for comment.
Questions: W. Reynolds:
Model constants should be allowed to change via computer algorithm,
G.
long as the computor himself does not subjectively modify constants. The Evaluation Committee recommends that model constants Lilley: changed in different flow situations.
S.
Kline:
must
not
as be
Evaluators should put priorities on flows of the same class to aid compu-
tors. W. Reynolds:
[fEd.:
The timing of t
meeting should be discussed.
This point is covered by the existing Questionnaire which disclosing methods.]
"'computors "
"*
594
is
to be filed by
REPORT OF THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE TO TRE 1980 MEETING*
The problems questionable
if
presented
mwny,
if
by turbulent
any,
that one method can solve all by the computor constitutes We do not expect
poses.
therefore I
flows are numerous,
problems
Ca change of anything,
hope that it
the (distant
in
their
We
which
?)
request
is
the sense
single constant,
to rate
methode because methods designed
or impossible
the methods
will be possible
in
to compare.
various
classes
for the Evaluation
types of methods are the most promising approach in
even a
It
a change of method).
to give a single rating for all
expect
as we have seen.
computing methods exist which are universal in
for different purposes will be difficult We
W. Emmons
H.
Chnirman:
and for
Committee
to become a
various pur-
to suggest which
universal code some
time
future.
that
the evaluators
"Specifications."
bring out the
If
essential
carefully review the
these
can
features
of
be
reduced
in
number of plots number
the complex nature
to
they specify
only
of the
those
flows,
plots
this will
help the Evaluation Committee enormously. We methods
hope
to
examine
the
numerical
to help with our evaluations.
techniques It
is
and
the
clear that
physics
a method that
cases will provide better information for evaluation than a method From evaluation in
the if
above
plans,
it
computations
is
clear
that
we will
be
of
able
are submitted as soon as completed,
to
the is
submitted
used on many
used on only one. do
rather
a
better job of than
all
coming
on July 15th 1981.
141
(Ed.: This report is preliminary to the Final Report of the Evaluation Committee and is intended as input for the Organizing Committee and for computors. The Final Report will appear in the Proceedings of the 1981 Meeting.] 595
.
.
.,.
1
SESSION XIV
Chairman:
G. Sovran
Technical Recorders: R. Jayarainan 0. M. Lilley
I
(J. Lumlcy) Plans for 1.981 and Beyond
596
:>KK~KK:». ~~~"'~~~--
-----------
-.
.
Minutes of Session XIV The Chairman opened the meeting by stating that the purpose of the session was to receive opinions regarding the 1980 conference and suggestions regarding the 1981 conHe stated that
ference for consideration by the Evaluation and Organizing Committees.
"the
major problems
ior
the procedure
196i were
for comparing computational
results
effective disclosure of comput-
with the experimental data and the need for complete,
He posed the following questions as a start to this discuas-
ing methods and programs. sion: I.
Complete Disclosure of Computational Method 1.
Are
there
any
important
pieces
of
commonly
information
missing
from
published descriptions of computational methods? details (on initial and boundary conditions,
Are sufficient
2.
ally given
with
respect
to a
particular
calculation
etc.)
that
it
usu-
can he
replicated by another computor? 3.
What
are some
specific
ideas for formalizing a procedure
to achieve
complete disclosure of the significant factors involved in a particular methud and computation? Questionnaire (for computors to file as disclosure of method)
II.
1. What type of additional questions would you like to ask abcut someone else's method? 2.
What
computor-influences
tionnaire,
if
will not be
identified by
the present ques-
any?
What specific suggestions do you have for improving the questionnaire?
3.
IMl. Evaluation Process How important are numerics in computational methods for complex turbu-
1.
lent flows?
2.
What elements
of computor
technique
(e.g.,
choice of mesh size,
wall
functions) are there that can influence the output from a code, and for what types of flows are they most significant? 3.
What
of evaluation
type(s)
is
(are)
possible/feasible
for
turbulent
computational methods?
IV.
System Checkout what flow will you volunteer to do a complete computation,
1. For
using
data from the magtape file, to check out the mechanics of the system:
597
. . . . . . * ..
..
. .
.
. .
..
. .
. . . . ..-... ..
,
".-
..
... .
....
.
.
•
.
. .
•i
i....
.
.
.
*•..
.
.N -•
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
,,.-
..
-
_
i
.*
i.
Bradshaw:
I wish to
report
a suggestion on a
behalf of Dcunis Bushnell. and turbulence-modeling
It
possible numerical
accuracy
check on
appears to be accepted that the numerical-accuracy
problems are interrelated,
especially for elliptic flows.
Simple partial checks such as mesh reiinemhnt are not necessarily definitive; example,
mesh
refinement
might
not
check
the
influence
of
boundary
for
condition
treatment. Therefore, model
(and
as
a
suggestion,
constants)
for
predictors
several
test
should all use
cases,
mostly
the same
turbulence
elliptic ones.
The
tur-
bulence model specified might b, the k-c or the three-equation model, either with wall function3 or computed directly to the wail. condition
treatment,
etc.,
would be
Grid-resolutlon
and boundary-
requi'ed for each case and should be deter-
mined by the predictors for their individual numerical approaches.
Tne intent is
to provide empirical checks of the numerical approach
where some of
the major influences of turbulence-model inclusion,
as a whole,
such as steep wall gradients
are included. W. Reynolds: so
Is
that
the suggestion that all computors use the same model for one problem,
the differences
in
the
results
would
be
due to
the numerical
methods
used? G. Sovran:
Yes.
J. Murphy.
I suggest that the mixing-length model is the one to be used.
J.
Johnston: used,
I agree with Murphy that a modcl using a mixing-length distribution be
since otherwise many computors using only these models will be excluded.
R. Melnik: in
We want to show that a method using g-1ven turbulence models is consistent
itself.
The computor should demonstrate b/
ics are independent of the mesh size, the Organizing Committee
i.e.,
clarify what is
refining the mesh that his numer-
by using two grids.
required
I suggest that
from computors
in the way of
numerical checks. D. Wilcox:
Something like Bushnell's
Saffman, :' -
but
was discarded,
suggestion was raised at an earlier session b,
since
in
many
cas's
it
would
involve
writing new
codes. G.
Sovran:
There are
two questions:
volved in making the checks, P.
Bradshaw:
Speaking
checks. then
If
and (b)
for Bushnell,
just some of them,
our purposes
(a) would av itordinate even if
dont,
amount of
time be in-
would they prove anything?
not all computeis would be required to do these representing a rac3,! of methods,
will be served.
I feel that
do these checks.,
'.t will be necessary to use a
complicated model rather than a mixing-length model. G. Lilley:
I wish to present to the meeting some matters which arose out of the dis-
cussions
in
the Evaluation
Committee.
It
is
hoped these matters will
receive
comments from attendees at the meeting: 59P
'
-.
-
,•-,•
•
•
.
_ •
...
-•..
_ ..
.';
.
-
.- *,
.
-.
.
•* .
.
.
•.
• '-
.
.
.-•
--
-
-
-
--
-.
."
1..
Did
your
method
approximately 2.
3.
(some
Give CPU time,
mass,
momentum,
energy
precisely
or
only
numerical methods introduce small errors)?
total run time,
bits of storage
required,
digits
used (double-precision?),
machine used for each case submitted.
Does your
some
is
4.
conserve
performance
in
simple
case
more general and powerful than required
look poor
(bits)
because your code
for this case?
Coruputors should rate the test cases they submit in the order of difficulty.
W.
Reynolds:
I
hope
that
what
is
imrlied
terms of computer time rather C. %"."
Lilley:
G. Mellor: G. Sovran: tion8,
in
the
questions
above
is
performance
in
than thu physics.
Yes. I wonder if CPU time is a relevant criterion in a scientific evrluation. This brings in the engineering versus the scientific aspects of compuIta-and there are develo-.Žrs of codes who intentionally sacrifice
accuracy for
srcrter running times. G.
Mellor:
It
appearc
we need
to carefully
calibrate
different
cumputers
in
judging
performance of codes in terms of CPU time.T.
Morel:
CPU
time
comparisono
where convergence
may
not
c,-aightforward
h'e
depends upon how close to the final
in
elliptic
.olutlon
computations
the initial
trial
is. G.
S...W.
Sovran: not
in
In
summarizing
this part of the discussion,
agreement with the proposal I
Paynolc
suggest
that
it
it
appears that computors are
of Bushnell.
might be
possible
to
perform some
useful
numerical
checks as course work at Stanford. G.
Sovran: hoped
that
other
aspect
lems. The
! note there is the
Organizing
of numerics
I understind
tain polass
agreremrent that srzh a proposal is
is
of
make
concerning
Rlýurt by H.
State
Numerical Sulution of Ellipti.2
turbulence
tb..t
will
the
necessary
the solurton
of
arrangements.
is An-
flow prob-
elliptic
_ha' McDonald has prepared a statement on this muatter.
from a Prepared
Predictions--Evaluation
background 0 Advanced
Commf!tee
very desirable and it
of
the
McDonald are as follows:
Art,
1980-81--Flow
Turbulent
Predictions
Flow
Involving
Partial Differential Equations
models
for complex or recirculating
flows
have been
and are
being developed. I
Evaluation
of
the
predictive
capacit-" of
such
turbulence
%odels eventual.ly
re-
quires a mean flow predictio;i of the complex shear flow involved.
0
In making this type of turbulence xodel evaluation, known,
acceptable,
unimportant
numerical error must be at a
level.
599
Ii " .....
.- -.
.i
- -
.-
-.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
*
It.
1968 Stanford Conference
to
produce accurate
ter resources.
able.
system of
lem, are
requiring an
numerics
off-the-shelf the
Obtaining
posed
accuracy of
in
desired
(required?)
schemes
employed was
1968.
complex shear
for
numerics
problems with negligible compu-
the finite-difference
Nimerics were not an issu2
1980s,
the
solutions to posed
numerical
Numerical
unquestioned. In
solution of ODE systems used off-the-shelf
flows are accurate
numerically
not yet
avail-
solutions
the
to
nonlinear partial differential equations may be a difficult
prob-
Hence
numerazs
research
significant
issue in
the
80s,
vo
that
and
development
turbulence
in
itself.
models will not
be
inappropriately
maligned. A prediction
0
constitutes
a combination of governing equations (including boundary model--and
conditions)--turbulence Allocation of
*
predict
flow
blame/credit field
to
requires
solution
(numerical)
constitutive
consideration
procedure. for
components of all
three
failure/achievement
components
(together
to
with
data uncertainty band). 0
Numerical nent
0
sources
must be negligible or tolerable
of error
to remove
this compo-
from consideration.
Governing versial,
equations and
in
and
boukidary
conditions
are
often
standard
and
noncontro-
many cases the data not suspect; hence error can be ascribed to a
turbulence model only after
removal of numerical
aepro imations to boundary conditions)
solution methodology
(ircluding
as a source of error.
Reservations Experience 0
has shown that
User operational significantly
s
I and
contribute
familiarity
to
riate inferences concerning Non-standard
*
(or
detract from)
(or
with numerical methods can
results obtained.
Hence inapprop-
turbulence models have sometimes been drawn.
numerical methodology
quately described
(or lack of it)
tested?)
has often been used and has often been inade-
to permit
Hence an
evaluation.
inability to allo-
cate the source of discrepancy between prediction and measurement occurs. Potential and encountered
0
apparen'
nuwerical
from predictions.
problems of major significance are not always
Comparison
with
data
are
not
necessarily
sole
the
evaluation criterion. Is
It
Important to Have a
"Good"
0
Traditional view--ends solution to a difficult
0
Experience shows
Lhat
tions can result
ii
Numerical Algorithm?
justify means. Approximations are introduced to permit a problem. Algorithm is part of means--hence unimportant. inappropriate
or misused numerical algorithms or approxima-
an erroneous trend.
600 L4
•
. .-
-..
•.
-'
.
,
1
.
-
.,As
a result of inappropriate or misused algorithws, numerical errors
ccntribu,ing either favorably
agreement and/or convergence rate. -
It
may
not
be
. ,reasonable
possible
computer
(how
or unfavorably to thp predictive
Thus the evaluation iL contaminated.
to reduce
resources
solutions contain significunt
the numerical defined?)
errors
to
insignificance
with
with the chosen algorithm for this
particular problem or category of prohlems.
* e
The user community may not be interested in means--the research community ought to be. any
A knowledge and appreciation of the means would seem a prerequisite
realistic
"probable
assessment.
In
thi& way
the user
community
will be
nler~ed
to to
limitationi, and undue uptimisu and disappointments minimized.
"User Operational Skill with Numerical Methods Can Contribute to Results Obtained" .
However, -
problems with numerics might not be discernible in predictions because
Numerical
error can
masquerade
as
physics and
be compensated
out,
but
this may produce an incorrect parametric dependence. -
Boundary and initial condition selection can hold solution "in
place" but
be unrealistic for user. -
Good initial
guess--limited
convergence (divergence?) -
Coarse
mesh
makes
independent.
iterations
hold
solution
"in
place."
Poor
not noticed.
calculation
feasible
yet solution
Large error--slow decrease with mesh
may
not
be
mesh-
size--often mistaker;
for mesh independence. If
0 a
-
Since
numerical problems are not discernible in predictions, are they important? the
Quality of the Numerics
Is
Important,
Can the Quality
of
the Numerics
Be
Assessed? To a degree, Standard
*
Real
yes,
but ...
numerical
problems
might
tests
on a model
introduce
problem are necessary
sufficient
difEerences
but
not
sufficient.
to r91se additional ques-
tions. Numerical algorithm often very complex,
0
One
cannot
done,
assess
what
Danger of tail.
algorithm
boundary conditions
the solution is •
the
non-standard, and incompletely described.
without
are applied,
"I've tried that and it
... "
Prior experience may or may not be relevant.
:
statement
how implemented,
didn't work
1101
::
very complete
of
rhat is
and how sensitive
to key numerical approximations.
•
::
a
:
OI
due to a sensitivity to de-
I..
CONCLUDINU REMARKS flow predictions numerical error levels must be known
For these complex turbulent
to be correctly
turbulence model and predictive accuracy
and acceptable to permit evaluated. *
Labor
to make
the aosessment
of
the possible
or probable '81
rors and to provide supporting evidence for Stanford *
Even without such assurance Stanford nitior, and
consequent
validation)
in
the
of
exposure
'81
could result in
the
way be overwhelming. a more widespread recog-
rnethbc'ol-gy
numerical
(with appropriate
(and a consequent reduction in
literature
technical
level of numerical er-
the
ber
of maligned turbulence modelsl)
P.
Bradshaw:
H.
McDonald:
McDonald suggesting checks are cnin.-cessary?
Is
checks.
What
I
Even
with
is
method
is
am suggesting full
a
disclosure
not
how
know
his
own
sensitive
his
Hence there will be some constraints
the approximations.
to some of
may
computor
wiil make
analyst
the numerical
that
on
what can be asked from computors for the 1981 Conference.
"sary
developing codes
We are
P. Bradshaw: for
us
to
the
separate
for
effects
the
engineering
of
numerics
community and
from
the
is
it
inaccuracies
necesthe
of
turbulence models. G.
Mellor: satisfy time,
S.
computor
Each
Launder:
I
that
and
line;
remind
expect
the
to
1981
on his method
checks
to
will take a long
these checks
for September
14-18,
1981,
but could
about
that
50
prospective
computors
have
Kline and expressed the desire to compute most flows
complete
in
these
Also,
time
for
the
July
deadline
for
the
only halt the cases are completed these
even if
task for evaluation.
a show of hands.
for
deadline;
of the
meeting
a difficult
present (Asked
G. Sovran: July
to
1981 Conference.
will still
of
Christmas 1981 or June 1982.
wish
they
September
added that
currently planned
replied to Professor
already
number
large
(He
accuracy.
The 1.981 meeting is
be delayed until B.
its
a
1981 too soon for the next conference?)
so is
Kline:
of
himsel'
be making
will
none reported
There were that
they
they could meet the
16 who said not
could
meet
July
the
1981 dead-
4 stated they would prefer a later date for the proposed Septem-
16,
ber 1981 Conference). Several
discussors
would
be
an
similarly. It
task. 70-
thereby
(Kline, ongoing
That
is,
resulting
program,
the
the
meeting
1981
both
status
for
users
that
just
evaluation
(unlike
can and hopefully will provide clarify
Felt
Launder):
Revnolds,
1968)
will
as
might not
the
Data
well
be
and
profitable
regarded
largely finish
snapshot cf the state
a
Library
avenues
the
of the art and of
further
re-
searches. 602
S~~
--..
-
•
-
-
--
.
---
..................
,-=,
,-,••.,•_••..•\.....
'•
E. Reshotko:
The numerical evaluation of codes I wonder
experiments.
if
they
is
very similar to the evaluation of
could be tested
in
a way analogous
to that of
Moffat's Uncertainty Analysis. P.
Saffman:
W. Rodi:
I suggest that the codes be tested for different sensitivities.
This is automatically done when the same code (like TEACH)
is used for difi
ferent problems. Editor's Note: As a result of this and othe; numerics,
discussions during the meeting concerning checks on
two actions have been planned regarding numerical checks for the 1981 meet-
ing. 1.
Computors will be asked to do a halving of mesh size or, not possible, sults (if
to do a
doubling,
if
halving is
in either case to report Lhe re-
and
possible on central cases to give dense results for compari-
son). 2.
study problems of numerics:
Two groups of computors will specifically one group chester
will be coordinated by
and
Ferziger,
J.
Karlsruhe; Stege-.,
the
B.
other
E.
Launder
group
will
and "1. Reynolds
at
and W. Rodi be
coordir.tted
Stanford.
The
group will produce
results for a common (orobably
various numerics.
Ferziger et al. may do similar work,
k-E)
at
Mar.by
i.
bLunder/Rod.l model using but will also
study results and disclosures as received to generate further ideas re numerical
checks
if
possible.
B. E.
Launder will coordinate overall
for the Ovganizing Committee. These
steps
than what is
on checking numerics
desired
(needed?),
The problem of numerics is
by
the Organizing CommIttee
as
less
of great importance and will be given serious ongoin& conAs on other problems arising from the work of
we expect that considerable learning will occur before the end of the Suggestions on this topic will be welcome.
1981 meeting. S.
seen
but as the best that current knowledge can suggest.
sideration as results are accumulated. the Conference,
are
Birch and W. Reynolds:
C-mputors will need to fully understand their codes so that
1-
they can fully dislose their methods during the coming year. B. Launder: S.
Kline:
All details of wall matching must be completely reported. Will Brian Launder please look carefully into this aspect of the Question-
naire and add specific questions on wall matching? J.
Hunt:
The
Questionnaire
does
not
address methods
other than Reynolds
equation methods. 603
-~C
.
transport
G.
Hunt propose some specific
Will Prof.
Sovran:
in
ods which can be incorporated G.
Sovran,
On
another
topic,
we
juest'ons on these additional meth-
the Questionnaire?
would
volunteers
appreciate
who
will
try
vome
of
these flows at an early stage so any problems that atile can be clariFied for the rest of the computors. The following volunteered: Flows 0210,
Bradshaw:
All the boundary layer cases,
Dvorak: Rodi:
Separated airfoil, Flow 0440. Boundary layers with wall curvature, Flow 0260.
Wilcox
Boundary-layer
cases,
compressible
number and wall
temperature,
ers, Flows 0250,
0810, 0820.
0630,
Flow 0230. and wall jets,
Cf
with
Hach
boundary
lay-
variation
three-dimensional
Flows 0140,
Flows preýsented by Simpson,
Murphy:
0240, 0620,
0430.
Cook/rirmin: Transonic airfoil, Flow 0862. Square duct (Gessner),
Rodi: S.
Kline:
Stated
JNovember
that
1980.
He
Lhe
expressed
sults of these trials
S. tially
Kline closed all
first
Flow 0110.
package the
of flow cases will be dispatched
hope
that
would submit
the
late re-
as soon as possible.
the conference with a vote of
the attendees at
the volu te:rs
in
the 1980 meeting.
604
thanks
for the hard work of essen-
I .
CONCLUSIONS
(1)
The 1980 Meeting of the AFOSR-HTTM 1980-81 Stanford
Conference was a cooperative
effort of a large fraction of the experimental fluid mechanics research community aimed at reaching a consensus concerning: "what currently available experimental data for turbulent flows are sufficiently trustworthy to be used as inputs to turbulence modeling, and/or a basis for standard 'trials' for checking outputs from computations?" The Conference is
best viewed as a learning process,
a way of accelerating under-
standing and research progress. (2)
The meeting demonstrated
that increased
and
fluid
experimentalists
"experiment
in
and computation,
by the paper on
interaction
mechanics
to close
is the
loop
and thereby speed progress.
Uncertainty
Analysis"
needed between computors iteratively between
The framework provided
can inform this process,
and is
strongly
recommended for use. (3)
The Working Groups and general discussinn problems
of
present
concern
in
at Lhe 1980 Meeting highlighted
experimental
fluid
mechanics.
Among
many
those dis%
cussed were
(4)
(i)
the accuracy of hot-wire measurements in subsonic, transonic, and supersonic flows, and the need for redundancy checks for laserdoppler anemometers;
(ii)
uncertainty analysis for skin-friction tubes in complex tubulent flows;
(iii)
whether shock waves are ever truly steady even in weakly turbulent interacting flows, or whether some high-speed jitter is alvy''ys present. If high-speed jitter exists, what are the resulting effects on the turbulence structure and the overall characteristics of the flow?
measurements
with
PiEzton
Although the 1980 Meeting confirmed that many good data sets are available, data
sets
flows.
of high quality are required Redundant
data
sets,
redundant
particularly
measurements,
and
improved
checks
The 1980 Meeting of the Conference made recommendations concerning: (i)
the planning of record experiments checking of computations;
(ii)
improved care needed in setting up the initial ann tions of record experiments;
for
turbulence
modeling
.----------
.,.-
and
boundary condi-
605
.
more
for very complex turbulent
experimental control zre also required. (5)
71
.
on
IF'.I (iii)
This
the improved use of uncertainty analysis through appropriate back checks at various stages of experimental work. use of uncertainty
experiments,
not
but also because
(6)
there is
compressible
flow data,
ate
feedback
modes.
8630,
and 8640.)
All of
"clear consensus"
be
out
of
as well also
as
the use of
date
comment
by
relatively
soon.
Kline
progress
on
we
on a sound and expanding provide
a
flow analysis
Data Base. current
in
of
appropri-
data
Discussion
of
believe
the
Flows
in
1981
1980-81
turbulence models and numerical
directing future research.
complex turbulent
analysis
The "state of the art"
Nevertheless,
sizes
should
instrumentation
the 1980 Meeting know that CFD is
and thereby help in
Meeting
to perform,
in
procedures
1980
on tru3tworthy
flow
J.
will delineate the state of the art in
the
compressible
S.
branch of fluid dynamics.
in
in
and difficult
uncertainty
Conference
that
important
This suggests careful preplanning and cross-checking
us who were privileged to participate
dependent "'
less
(See
an active and expanding
will
particularly
only because they are more expensive
and the resulting data.
8610,
analysis is
feed-
and prediction
The data base
This work again emphais
library created
and a
mechanism for
vitally through future
expansion.
60
4
-
.
.
S
.
.*..*-
.
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS, No. in Photo B.41
"
*
Tasks
Affiliation or Address
Name Dr. Mukund Acharya
Fluid Mechanics Group Brown, Boveri & Company, CH-5405 Baden-Dittwil SWITZERLAND
Data Eval. Ltd.
8.2
Mr. Eric W. Adams
Mech. Eng. Department Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305
Aide; Tech. Rec.
A.30
Mr. Bahram Afshari
Mech. Eng. Department Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305
Aide; Tech.
P.40
Dr.
Sandia Laboratories Livermore, CA 94550
Computor
Mr. Harry Bailey
NASA-Ames Research Center "Mail Stop 2023.-1 Moffett Field, CA 94035
Computor
A.19
Mr. Jorge Bardina
Mech. Eng. Department Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305
Aide
A.13
Mr. Juan G. Bardina
Mech. Eng. Department Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305
Aide
Dept. of Aeronautics Imperial College Prince Consort Road London SW7 2BY, ENGLAND Inst. de MHcanique Statistique de la Turbulence 13, avenue du Giin6ral Leclerc Marseille 13003, FRANCE
Review Comm.
NASA-Ames Research Center %ail Stop 229-1 Moffett Field, CA 94035
Computor
W. T. Ashurst
-
Dr. P.
Bearman
Dr.
Claude Beguier
Dr.
Muriel Y. Bergman
2
1980 MEETING ON DATA
Computor; Data Taker
B.30
Dr.
Claude Berner
Aerospace & Mech. Eng. Dept. The University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721
Discussor
A.50
Dr.
Stanley F.
Org. L-7150, Mail Stop 41-52 Boeing Military Airplane Co. P. 0. Box 3999 Seattle, WA 98124
Data Eval.
8.23
Prof.
Birch
S. M. Bogdonoff
A.78
Prof.
Peter Bradshaw
Dept. of Aeronaut./Mech. Princeton University Princeton, NJ 08544
Eng.
Chairman
Org. Rev. Data Data
Aeronautics Department Imperial College Prince Consort Road London, SW7 2BY, ENGLAND
Rec.
Comm.; Chairman; Comm. Chairman; Eval.; Taker
607
N-.. :....i i-i.:. . . ._:. _.. II
. . . . .= i,:.
.i l... ,-..,. .. : ... i...i I
I
.
.
S-.
-
.k
.-...
-
No.
-,-'•
-
-_
- '
-
-.--
.
in
Brune
A.25
Mr.
Guenter
A.39
Dr.
nennis Bushnell
A.8
Prof.
A.31
Mr.
Robert
B.20
Dr.
Lawrence W. Carr
A.35
Dr.
Ian P.
B.28
Prof.
Brian Cantwell
F.
Carella
Castro
H. Champagne
Dr.
.•
.
-
•
-
Dean R.
Chapman
Chevray
A.7
Prof.
R.
A.4
Prof.
M. Childs
A.16
Mr.
Robert Childs
A.27
Dr.
Thomas
J. Coakley
Dr.
David J. Cockrell
A.2
Prof.
A.82
Dr.
J.
-
• .
-
4.
'
'
Donald Coles
Cousteix
-.
•
-..
.
Tasks
Boeing Military Airplane Co. P. 0. Box 3707, Mail Stop 3N-29 98124 Seattle, WA
Discussor
NASA-Langley Research Center Hampton, VA 23665
Discussor
Aero & Astro Department Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305
Org. Comm.; Supervisor Data Library; Data Eval.
Aero & Astro Department Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305
Aide; Tech. Data Entry
U.S. Army Ae:omechanics Lab. NASA-Ames Research Center Mail Stop 215-1 Moffett Field, CA 94035
Chairman; Discussor; Data Eval.
Dept. of Mech. Eng. Guildford Surrey, University of5XH, ENGLAkND Surrey, GU2
Review Comm.; Tech. Rec.
Aerosp. & Mech. Eng. Dept. University of Arizona Tucson, AZ 85721 NASA-Ames Research Center
Special Comm.
Mail Stop 200-4 Moffett Field, CA
Discussor
Eval.
Rec.;
Gomm.;
94035
Dept. of Mechanics State University of New York Stony Brook, NY 11790 Dept. of Mech. Eng. University of Washington
Computor; Data Taker Discussor
98105
Seattle, WA
B.25
-• /
Affiliation or Address
Name
Photo
.
Aide; Tech.
Mech. Eng. Department Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 NASA-Ames Research Center Mail Stop 229-i Moffett Field, CA
Computor
94035 Rec.; Reviews
Department of Engineering The University Leicester, LEI 7RH, ENGLAND
Tech. Tech.
GALCIT 321 Guggenheim Laboratory Calif. Inst. of Technology
Data Eval.;
Pasadena, CA CERT/DERAT
91125
2, avenue Edouard Belin Complex Aerospatiale, B.P. 31055 Toulouse, FRANCE
608
Rec.
Review Comm. 4025
-.-
.-
.
-"
- '~No.
in..-
"Photo
Mech. Eng. Department Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305
Aide; Tech.
Atkins Research & Development Woodcote Grove, Ashley Road Epsom, Surrey, KT18 5BW, ENGLAN•D
Data Eval.
Antony Demetriades
Dept. of %Mech. Eng. 220 Roberts Montana State University Bozeman, MT 59717
Special Comm.
Pius Drescher
Brown Boveri & Company. Dept. TX CH-5401, Baden-D~ttwil SWITZERLAND
B.5
Mr.
Andrew D.
A.58
Dr.
R.
B.42
Dr.
A.54
Mr.
B.48
Prof.
A.75
Dr.
B.49
Prof.
B.9
Ms.
Tasks
Affiliation or Address
Name
F.
B.
Cutler
Dean
Franz Durst
A.
Dvorak
John Eaton
Pam Eibeck
Ltd.
Sonderforschungsbereich 80 Universitgt Karlsruhe Kaisurstrasse 12 D 75 Karlsruhe 1, WEST GERMANY President Analytical 100-116th Bellevue,
& Dir. of Research Methods, Inc. Avenue S. E. WA 98004
Data Eval.
Review Comm.
Tech. Rec.; Computor; Discussor
Mech. Eng. Department Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305
Host Comm.; Data Eval.; Coord: Aides
Mech. Eng. Department Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305
Aide; Tec'..
"KI Rec. 21
B.29
Prof.
H. W. Emmons
Room 308, Pierce Hall Harvard University Cambridge, MA 02138
Chairman, Eval. Comm.
A.26
Prof.
Torstein K. Fannel~p
Div. of Aero & Gas Dynamics Norges Tekniske H6gskole Higskoleringen I N 7034 Trondheim, NORWAY
Data Taker
Prof.
A.
de M~canique Statistique inst. de la Turbulence
Computor; Data Taker
Favre
Rec.
.
13, avenue du Glngral Leclerc Marseille 13003, FRANCE Mr.
A.11
B.26
Bill Feiereisen
Prof.
Prof.
H.
Fernholz
Joel Ferziger
Al
Mech. Eng. Department Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305
Aide
fNr Herman-Fottinger Institut Thermo- und Fluiddynamik Technische Universit~t D-1000 Berlin 12, WEST GEýU4ANY
Data Taker
Mech. Eng. Department Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305
Host Comm.; Data Eval.
-.
609 609
--
No. in Photo B.33
Tasks
AMfiliatinn or Address
Name Dr. Anthony W. Fiore
Division
AFWAL/FIMG Aeromech.
Discussor
Flight Dynamics Laboratory Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433
B.11
Mr.
M. C. P. Firmin
Aerodynamics Department
Discussor
Royal Aircraft Establishment Farnborough, Hampshire GU14 6TD, ENGLAND A.15
Mr.
Mauricio N. Frota
A.6
Jack H.
Prof.
Gerrard
Mech. Eng. Department Stanford University
Aide
Dept. of Mechs. of Fluids University of Manchester
Tech. Rec.; Rev. Comm.
Stanford,
CA
94305
Manchester M13 9PL, ENGLAND A,9
Prof.
Fred Gessner
Dept. of Mech. Eng., FU-10 University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195
Data Eval.; Rev. Comm.
A.3
Prof.
Isaac
Dept. of Mech. & Aerosp. Eng. Case Western Reserve University Cleveland, OH 44106
Discussor
A.40
Dr.
Masinski fakultet Omladinsko Setaliste
Computor
K.
Creber
Hanjali6
YOGOSLAVIA
71000 Sarajevo, A.59
Dr.
Robert Hantman
Mech. Branch. G.E. Company Bldg. K-I, P. 0. Box 8 Schenectady, NY 12301
Tech.
A.65
Dr.
H. Higuchi
NASA-Ames Research Center Mail Stop 229-1 Moffett Field, CA 94035
Discussor
Head, Mech. Eng. Dept. The Univ. of British Columbia
Eval.
Prof.
Philip G.
Hill
Rec.
Comm,.
Vancouver, B.C., V6T 1W5, CANADA B-19
Prof.
B.12
Dr.
S.
C. '.
Honami
Horetman
Science Univ. of Tokyo Kagurazaka, Sinju-ku Tokyo, 162, JAPAN
Data Eval.; Pictorial Summ.
NASA-Ames Research Center
Data Eval.
Mail Stop 229-1 ""-Moffett Field, CA
B.10
Dr.* Thotuas T. Huang
Code 1552 David Taylor Naval Ship R & D
"Bethesda, A.1
Dr.
J.
A.
C. Humphrey
"A.76
Mr. D.
A.
Humphreys
MD
L
94035
Discussor
20084
Dept. of Mech. Eng. University of California Berkeley, CA 94720
Tech. Rec.; Data Taker
Aerodynamics Dept. Aeronaut. Res. Inst. of Sweden "V'. 0. Box 11021 S-161 11 Bromma, SWEDEN
Data Eval.; Discussor
"610
i*
"
No.
in
Photo A.55
Name Dr.
Affiliation or Address
Ching Hung
NASA-Ames
Tasks
Research Center
Computor
Mail Stop 202A-1 Moffett Field, CA
A.47
Mr.
Julian C.
94035 CIRES University of Colorado Boulder, CO 80309
R. Hunt
-
B.31
Prof.
A.
K.
M. F.
Dept.
of Mech. Eng. University of Houston
Hussain
Hnueton, TX A.71
Discussor
Tech. Rec.; Discussor
77004
Dr.
Kuneo Irabu
Mech. Eng. Dept. University of Ryukyus Tonokura-cho, Naha Okinawa, JAPAN
Discussor
A.34
P..
Ramesh Jayaraman
Mech.
Aide
A.33
Mr.
Ranga Jayaraman
Eng. Department Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 Mech. Eng. Department
Charles E.
Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 AFWAL/FIMM
Dr. A.69
B.14
A.53
Jobe
Dennis Johnson
Prof.
J.
Prof. J.
P.
Host Comm.;
Stanford University
Data Eval.;
Virginia Polytechnic A.52
Prof.
Blacksburg, VA Peter N. Joubert
Dean William M. Kays
B.45
Dr.
Mr.
P.
of Mech. Eng. The University of Melbourne Parkville, Victoria 3052 AUSTRALIA
Tech.
School of Engineering Stanford University
Rev.
A.83
Prof.
S.
J.
Building YM
Gaithersburg, MD 20760 Motoren- und Turbinen
Dr.-Ing. Armin Klein
Union Minchen GmbH D-8000 Minchen, WEST GERMANY Mech. Eng. Department
Kline
Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305
Rec.
Comm.
Discussor
Chairman; Data Taker
Review Comm.
Chairman,
Org. Comm.; Host Comm.; Rev. Comm. Chairman
611
S.
..
.
.
.
Chairman
Stop 229-1
Room 109,
'.
.
Inst.
Moffett Field, CA 94035 National Bureau of Standards
S. Klebanoff
Chairman;
24061
Dept.
Mail
A.67
Rev. Comm. Tech. Rec.
Stanford, CA 94305 NASA-Ames Research Center
John Kim
Discussor
Moffett Field, 94035 Mech. Eng. Department
Stanford, CA 96305 Dept. of Mech. Eng.
B. Jones
Rec.
45433
NASA-Ames Research Center Mail Stop 227-8
Johnston
Tech.
Review Comm.
Wright-Patterson AFB, OH Dr.
Aide;
.i
"i
"
S
No.
in
Photo
I,
Name
Affillation or Address
Mr.
D. M. Kuehn
NASA-Ames Research Center Mail Stop 229-1 Moffett Field, CA 94035
rlata Taker
Dr.
John LaRue
Dept. of Appl. Mech. P. 0. Eox 109 Univ. of California, La Jolla, CA 92037
Data Taker
San Diego Org. Comm.; Chairman; Data Eval.;. Rev. Comm. Chairman
Mech. Eng. Department Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305
Aide; Tech. Rec.
Dr. Anthony Leonard
NASA-Ames Research Center Mail Stop 202A-1 Moffeýtt Field, CA 94035
Computov
A.42
Dr.
ARAP. Inc. P. o. Box 2229 Princeton, NJ 08540
Computor
B.22
Prof.
G. M. Lilley
Dept. of Aero and Astronautics University of Southampton Southampton, ENGLAND
Eval. Tech. Tech.
A,18
Prof.
John L.
Sibley Scn. of Mech/Aero Eng. 238 Upson Hall Cornell University Ithaca, NY 14853
Chairman; Rev. Comm. Chairman
A.12
Prof. R. E. Luxton
Dept. of Mech. Eng. University of Adelaide GPO Box 498, Adelaide S. Australia 5001, AUSTRALIA
Discuesor
A.23
Mr.
Mech. Eng. Department Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305
Aide
Prof.
A.45
Mr.
B.44
B.38
Brian Launder
Mario Lee
Steve Lewellen
Lumley
Aristoteles
Joseph G. Marvin
NASA-Ames Research Center Mail Stop 229-1 Moffett Field, CA ?4035
Rev. Comm.; Gov't Monitor
Dr.
J.
Ecole Centrale de Lyon "B.P. No. 17 69130 Ecully, FRANCE
Rev. Comm.; Computor
U.S. Army Aeromechanics Lab NASA-Ame3 Research Center Mail Stop 215-1 Moffett Field, CA 94035
Chairman; Discussor
Scientific Research Assoc. P. 0. Boy 498 Glastonbury, CT 06033
Computor
Mathieu
H. McDonald
612
...
Comm.; Rec.; Reviews
Mr.
Dr. W. J. McCroakey
S-Dr.
Scl.
University of Manchester Inst. of Sci. & Tech. .Mech. Eng. Dept. Sackville Street, P. 0. Box 88 Manchester M60 1QD, ENGLAND
A.74
Lyrio
"-.:.
TaAks
L
No. in Photo
Same
Afiliation or Address
Tasks
A.21
Dr. William D. McNally
Chie~f, Comp. Fluid Mech. Branch NkSA-Lewis Research Cent'ar Mail Stý-" 5-9 Clevelar.d, OH 44135
Gov't Monitor
B.21
Dr. Unweel Kehta
Computor
B.13
Dr. Hans Ulrich
NASA-Amee Research Center Mail. Stop 202A-1 '(offett Field, CA 94035 DlFVLR-AVA, Institut f~ir Exp. Str~muingamechianik Buisenstrosae 10 D-34CO G~tringen, WEST GERMANY
Meier
Cociputor; Tape Library Acce..s
A-51
Prof. George Mellor
Geophys. Fluid Dyn. Lab. P. 0. Box 308 Princeton University Princeton, NJ 08540
Rev. Comm.; Computor
B.7
Dr. R. E. Melnik
Resea'vch Dept., M/SA-08-35 Grumman Aerospace Corp.
Data Eva].; Computor
Bethpage, NY B.37
11714
Dr. H. Ha Minh
Inst. de i{6canique des Fluides 2, rue (Amichel 21071 Toulouse Cedex, FRANCE
Computor
Prof. R. J. Haff&t
Mech. Eng. Department Stanfcrd University Stanford, CA 94305
Host Comm.; Speaker
Dr. Parviz Momn
Mech. Eng. Departmeiit Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305
Tech, Rec.
Dr. Thomas Mo~rel
Fluid Dynaraics Dept., Res. Labs. General Motors Tech. Center 12 Mile & Mound Roads Warren, MI 48090
Tech. Rec., Computor
A.14
Dr. Mark Markovin
1104 Linden Avenue 0-Ok Park, IL 60302
Eval. Comm.; Rev. Comm.
B-16
Mr. Alan Morse
Dept. of Mech. Eng. Imperial College London SIA7 2BY, ENGLAND
Date Eval.
A-68
Prof. Rai. L. Moses
Depý.. of Mecil. Eng. Virginia Polytechnic !not. Blacksburg, VA 24061
Tech. Re'c.; Rev. Comm.; Compurur
A-38
Mr. John Murphy
NASA-Ames Recearch Center Mail qtot2 227-8 Moffett lý1eld, CA 94035
Computor
Prof. It.Naglib
Mech. &,Aerospace Eng. l11inoia Institute or Tech. Chicago, IL 60616
Tech. Rec.; Discussor
Prof. Roddam Naranimha
Dept. of Aeronauticnl Eng. Indian lnsitirute of Scicnce Bangalore 560 012 INDIA
Rev. Comm.; Computor
N
*A.48
48.3 8.35
613
No.
in Name
Photo A.77
A.44 =.•-•.P.O0.
Dr.
Dr.
Affiliation or Address
Barry G.
F.
K.
Newman
Owen
Dept. of Mech. Eng. McGill University 817 Sherbrooke St. West Montreal, P.Q. H3A 2K6,
Tasks Rev. Comm.; Discussor CANADA
Consultant Box 1697 Palo Alto,
CA
Data Taker 94302
Prof.
Pradip Parikh
Mech. Eng. Department SLanford University Stanford, CA 94305
Tech.
A.66
Prof.
V. C.
Iowa Inst. of Hydraulic Res. University of Iowa Iowa City, IA 52240
Chairman; Data Eval.; Rev. Comm.; Discussor
A.80
Dr.
G.
Boeing Military Airplane Co. P. 0. Box 3999, Mail Stop 4152 Seattle, WA 98124
Computor
A.79
Dr.
David Peake
Sr. Research Associate NASA-Ames Research Center M¶all Stop 227-8 Moffett Field, CA 94035
Dsta Taker
Dept. of Mech. Eng. University of Melbourne Parkville, Victoria 3052 AUSTRALIA
Data Taker
Prof.
B.34
Dr.
C.
A.
Patel
Paynter
E.
Perry
Stuart L. Petrie
Prof.
Felix J. Pierce
A.41
Prof.
Mr.
A.22
R.
L.
H.
Pletcher
G. Pre&1ey
Hr. Steve W. Pronchick
A.60
"A.62
Dr.
Brian Quinn
Prof.
3. R. Ramaprian
B.47
Prof.
Eli Reshotko
Professor and Chairman Dept. Aero. and Astronaut. The Ohio State University 2036 Neil Avenue Columbus, OH 43210
Rec.
Data Taker Eng.
Dept. of Mech. Eng. Virginia ?olytechnic Institute Blacksburg, VA 24061
Rev. Comm.; Computor
Dept. of Mach. Eng. Iowa State University Ames, IA 50011
Computor
NA-A-Ames Research Center Mail Stop 227-8 94035 Moffett Field, CA
Rev.
Mech. Eng. Department
Aide; Tech. Rec.
Comm.
Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 ARAP, Inc. Princeton,
Computor NJ
08540
Inst. of Hydraulic- Res. The Universi(y of Iowa Iowa City, IA 52242
Rev.
Dept. of Mech. & Aerosp. Eng. Case/Wentern Reserve Univ. Cleveland, OH 44106
Org. Comm.; Chairman; Data E':al.; Rev. Comm. Chairman
614
Comm.
I
ii
No.
in _o
Photc
A.20
Name
Affiliation or Address
Prof. W. C. Reynolds
Tasks
Mach. Eng. Department
Eval. Comm.;
Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305
Chairman; Host Comm.; Rev. Comm. Chairman
4925 Kathryn Circle S.E. Albuquerque, NM 87108
Eval. Comm.; Compt'..or
Dr.
P.
A.63
Dr.
Wolfgang Rodi
Sonderforschungsbereich 80 Universitit Karlsruhe Kaiseratrasse 12 D 75 Karlsruhe 1, WEST GERMANY
Data Eval.. Computor
B.6
Dr.
Anatol Roshko
Guggenheim Lab. 105-50 Calif. Inst. of Technology Pasadena, CA 91125
Chairman; Rev. Comm.
J.
Roache
Chairman
A.56
Mr.
Morris Rubesin
NASA-Ames Research Center Mail Stop 202A-1 Moffett Field, CA 94035
Org. Comm.; Data Eva..; Rev. Comm. Chairman
A.5
Dr.
Philip G.
Appl.
Diacunsor
"Saffman
Math.,
Calif. Inst, of Technology Pasadena,
"B.13
Prof.
V. A.
A.81
rrof.
Joe Schetz
Dr.
B.15
H. C.
Prof.
Sandborn
Seetharam
Y. Senoo
Firestone 217-50
In
CA
91125
Dept. of Civil Eng. Engineering Res. Center Colorado State University "Fort Collins, CO 80521
Data Taker
Dept. of Aerosp. & Ocean Eng. Virginia Polytechnic Inst. & State University "Blacksburg, VA 20461
Computor
Boeing Military Airplane Co. P. 0. Box 3999, Mail Stop 3N-43 Seattle, WA 98124
Data Taker
Red. Inst. of Ind. Science Kyushu University Hakozaki, Fukuoka-si
Computor
812 JAPAN *-.
A.24
Dr.
Gary S.
Settles
Gas Dynamics Laboratory Forrestal Campus, Princeton Univ.
Princeton, NJ Mr. Terry Simon
Prof.
A.36
Dr.
A.
Roger L. Simpson
J.
08544
Mech. Eng. Department Stanford University
Stanford, CA A.61
Smits
Data Taker
Data Eval.
94305
Civil & Mechanical Eng. Southern Methodist Univ.
Data Eval.; Rev. Comm.;
Dallas,
Discussor
TX
75275
Dept. of Mech. Eng. University of Melbourne Parkville, Victoria 3052
Discussor
AUSTRALIA A.64
Dr.
Rone•Id M. C.
So
Mechanics Branch General Electric Company Bldg. K-I, P. 0. Box 8 Schenectady, NY 12301
Tech. Rec.: Data Taker
615
SI
No. in Photm A.10
Name
Dr.
Affiliation or Address
reter M. Sockol
Research Eng. Comp. Fluid Mech.
Tasks Gov't.
Monitor
Branch
NASA-Lewis Research Center, MS 5-9 Cleveland,
Dr. Gino Sovran
Prof.
K. R.
Dept.
Sreenivasan
44135
Fluid Dynamics Dept. Research Laboratories General Motors Technical Center 12 Mile & Mounds Roads Warren,
A.57
OH
MI
48090
of Eng.
& Appl.
Joseph Stegr
Mr. Tony Straws
5.4
Mr.
Roger C.
Strawn
Prof.
A.32
Mr.
Robert L. Street
Ram Subbarao
CA
Eval.
CA
CA
B.46
E.
Dr. Y.
B.43
Prof.
B.17
Mr.
B.24
Mr.
P.
Sutton
Tassa
H. Thomann
Rec.;
Aide; Tech.
Rec.
94305
Civil Eng. Deartment Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305
Discussor
Mech.
Aide; Tech.
Eng.
Department
Stanford, CA Prof.
Aide; Tech. Data Entry
94365'
Stanford University A.17
Comm.
94087
Mech. Eng. Department !'tanford University Stanford,
Comm.
21218
Aero and Astro Department Stanford University Stanford,
Data Eva!.; Rev.
Flow Simulations, Inc. 298 S. Sunnyvale Avenue
Sunnyvale, A.43
Science
Yale University "P. 0. Box 2159
New Haven, CT Mr.
Org. Comm.; Chairman; Rev. Comm. Chairman
94305
Univ. Eng. Dept. Trumpington Street Cambridge, CB2 lPZ, Lockheed Dept. 72-74, GEORGIA
Rec.;
Data Entry Presentor ENGLAND Computor
Zone 404
Institut fc Aerodynamik ETH-Zentrum 8092 Zurich, SWITZERLAND
Data Taker
Murr-y Tobak
NASA-Ames Research Center Mail Stop N234-1 Moffett Field, CA 94035
Computor
Cam Tropea
Sonderforschungsbereich Universitht Karlsruhe
Data Taker
80
Kaiserstrasse 12 D-75 Karlsruhe
A.49
Dr.
T.
Dr.
Hiromasa Ueda
J.
Tyson
1,
WEST GERMANY
Energy and Env. Res. Corp. 2400 Michelson Drive Irvine, CA 92715
Computor
NatI. Inst. for Env. Studies P. 0. Yatabe, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305 JAPAN
Data Taker
616
..
. .
.
.± -- . .
...
.
.
.
.
No. in Photo
Name
A.73
Dr.
A.28
B.
Affiliation or Address
van den Berg
Tasks
National Aerospace Lab NLR Authony Fokkerweg 2 Amsterdam - 1017, NETHERLANDS
Data Eval.
Dr. John Viegas
NASA-Ames Research Center Mail Stop 229-1 Moffett Field, CA 94035
Computor
B.36
Dr.
Aero & Astro Department Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305
Data Taker
A.29
Dr. Klan Wadcock
NASA-Ames Research Center
Data Eval.; Data Taker
Mr.
Mail Stop 247-1 Moffett Field, CA 94035 Mech. Eng. Department
B.8
P.
B.1
Dr.
Viswanath
Russ V.
Prof.
A.70
R.
J.
D. C.
Prof.
I.
Westphal
H. Whitelaw
Wilcox
Wygnanski
Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305 Dept. o," Mech. Eng. ImperlaL College Prince Consort Road London SW7 2BY, ENGLAND DCW Industries 4367 Troost Avenue Studio City, CA 91604 School of Engineering
Aide;
Tech,
Rec.
Data Taker
Computor
Rev.
Comm.
Tel-Aviv University Ramat Aviv, ISRAEL B.27
Dr.
Eisho Yamazato
Mechanical Eng. Dept. University of Ryukyus
Tonokura-cho, Okinawa, Dr.
K.
Mr.
Paul Youssefmir
T.
Yen
Naha
JAPAN
Department of the Navy Naval Air Developoent Center
Warminster. A.46
Data Taker
PA
Mech.
Computor
.
18974
Eng. Department Stanford University Stanford, CA 94305
Aide
p :
§
i-~
617
.
-
'NO
7.1
L8
to 0 1
(A 0%
.0
WICO -A w4
-7-7
0.~ >,L (i-W .-
,4
1C
c
0
0
0cc
o
d
Dw-
0%
w
40 IV.
44J~l O
E". Mz e -A1 Q
0-
)0 u
C
a
-4
-.4
*
4M.
0
0
to
.0
0 1.
14
c.40).
C4
619
tn'
CC
C~ 0'
JJ
0
0
-
-
-
-.
-
-
-
.1
_
__
__
__
-
-
-.
I
7
I-
F I,
*1 * A
I I
I I!.' I.
I... I
___
____
___
-
i-i-
.1
:50
a)414 41l
>N
0 'a 4)
\r..(H 00
'0
0w Q 2 00) 09 w3.
-i A .0 w 9IdI4
>'0 4.-
.0
3
0~
j
0
0 W0 0
U 0c td
w 1. 0.4 "0
Cl Q4)09.d J' ,)w(0
A
.4d
G1 0-di w9
94
0
4.0)9
0
w 0w9.4'
.9n
0)
.~~
0-
44fA1 0d$10
Q.90.0i
9M0
N,,
4J
4
'0.ca
9.~4J)'0
IV N
'0
0
0
W 11 0%
ONO
F-
0
=
0
w
0'0904)
rol Z&Lj
OO
li
W
N~-
W9.-V.-4
0 -4 0
"
V..
a
0~ w~Xd 2:
U'
0
-4 4 1.
ý2C
-,
w
a)~F
ODad C..4 c
- ý
-1--
Q0
>1.4
W0
9k. .3
C
4
62)1.
'44ý4
C
.'.
-1'v
LIST OF DATA EVALUATORS
-•$
"Name
Flow No.
M. Acharya
0150
2-dimensional channel flow with periodic
S. Birch
0310
Planar mixing layer
0210
Effect of free-stream turbulence on boundary layers
0330
Free shear layer with streamwise
8500
Compressibility effects on free-shear layers
0410
Evaluation of bluff-body,
8670
Pointed axisymmetric bodies at angle of attack (supersonic)
P.
Bradshaw
"B.Cantwell Cockrell
D.J.
Coles
0610
Attached boundary layers -
R.B.
Dean
0510
Turbulcnt secondary
0470
Flow over the trailing
Drescher
J.K.
perturbations
178 170
D.E.
P.
Page
Flow Category
130
curvaure
near-wake
364
flows
220 543
Conference)
('68
flows of the
first
86
82
kind
139
edge of blades and airfoils
555
0420
Backward-facing
Favre
8680
Axisymmetric near wake flow (supersonic)
482
Ferziger
0370
Homogeneous
405
F.B. Gessner
0110
Corner
S. Honami
0230
Boundary layer flows with streamwise curvature
C.C. Horstman
8100
Supersonic flow over a flat plate (insulated wall)
369
8200
Supersonic
369
8400
Boundary layers in an adverse pressure gradient axisymmetric internal flow
in an
8410
Boundary layers in an adverse pressure gradient two-dimensional flow
in
A. J.H.
Eaton
step flow
275
turbulent flows
flow (secondary
flow of the second kind)
flow over a flat
plate
182 94
(cooled wall)
378 378
8600
Impinged normal shock wave-boundary at transonic speeds
layer i.nteraction
8610
Transoiic flow over a bump
458
8630
Compressible
458
8640
Compressible flow over compression corner with reartaching planar shear layer
458
8650
Axisymmetric shock impingement
486
8660
Three-dimen~sional shock impingement (supersonic)
486
8690
Nonlifting,
486
486
flow over deflected surfaces
transonic airfoil
(supersonic)
with shock separation
D.A.
Humphreys
0250
Three-dimensional
J.P.
Johnston
0420
Backward-facing step flow
275
Jones
0130
Entry zone of round tube
213
LUunder
0260
Turbulent wall jet
434
Melnik
8620
Transo
523
Horse
0340
Flows with swirl
J.B. B.E. R.E. A.P.
ic
turbulent boundary
airfoils
layers
162
317
622
Name
Flow No.
V.C. Patel
0350
Ship wakes
552
"0360 "0380 "0390
Wakes of round bodies
327
Wakes of two-dimensional bodies
340
AxisymmetrLc boundary layer with strong streamwise and transverse curvature
327
Pointed axisymmetric (supersonic)
543
D. Peake E.
8670
Reshotko W. Rodi
M.W.
Rubesin
L.
L.C.
Turbulent wall jet
8100
Supersonic
flow over a flat
plate (insulated wall)
369
"8200
Supersonic
flow over a flat
plate (cooled wall)
369
8400
Boundary layers in an adverse pressure axisymmetric t.nternal flow
434,
gradient
an 378
Boundary layers In an adverse pressure gradient two-dimensional flow Impinged normal shock wave-boundary at transonic speeds
in in
378
layer interaction 486
8610
Transonic
flow over a bump
458
"8630
Compressible flow over deflected
8640
Compressible flow over compression corner reattaching planar shear layer
surfaces
458 i tith 458
"8650 "8660 "8690
Axisymmetric shock impingement
Simon
0230
Boundary layer
flows with streamwise curvature
Simpson
0140
Diffuser flows
(unseparated)
"0430
Diffuser flows (separated)
253
0240
Turbulent
112
"8300
Turbulent boundary layers with suction or blowing at supersonic speeds
Squire
Sreenivasan
B. van den Berg
Three-dimensional Nonlifting,
(supersonic)
shock impingement
transonic
(supersonic)
with shock separation
airfoil
Variation in Number
486 486 94
-
i12
Cf/Cfo for blowing/suction with Mach 549
567
flows
0280
Relaminarizing
0250
Three-dimensional
turbulent boundary layers
Two-dimensional
J.C. Wyngaard
9000
Flows with bu,.:. cy forces
314
623
--
-.-
-.
---
-
162 234
stalled airfoil
0440
fI
486
253
boundary layers with suction or blowing
Wadcock
A.J.
554
transition
Laminar-turbulent
8310
K.R.
bodies at angle of attack
0260
8600
R.
Page
0290
8410
T.W.
Flow Category
-----
-
-
s--
-
-
-
-
j
NUMERICAL INDEX TO FLOW CASES AND DATA LIBRARY TAPE Nomenclature: Incompressible Flow C•mpressible Flow
0 8
Prefix
Flow number
0 or 8
Two digits
1..
{
0
2 Case number
'
3
0
} 8 Two
or
digits
4 5 6___I
Flow Category
(Evaluator)
(Flow
No.) Index to the Tape
No.
No. of
File
Files
Number
Page
28
2-29
182
Secondary currents in the turbulent flow through a straight conduit
4
30-33
182
Asymmetric
*
287
Entry zone of round tube
t
213
Entry zone of round tube
t
213
Data Taker
Title Incompressible
(F.
Gessner)
Flows
Corner flow (secondary (0110)
flow of the second kind) 0111 0112
J. F.
Po!E. LUnd; Gessner
J.
Hinze
0113
Developing flow in
--
(J.B.
0131
A. Barbin/J.
0132
D. Miller
I 0141
(R.L.
Jones)
Jones
Simpson)
a square duct
flow in
a square duct
Entry zone of round tube
Diffuser
flows
(0130)
(unsepat.)
(0140)
A. P.
S muel/ Joubert
Increasingly adverse pressure gradient flow
0142
R.
Pozzorini
0143
R. Pozzorini
Six-degeee conical diffuser low-core turb. Six-degree conical diffuser high-core turb.
.Predictive
Case P1.
%Not ubtd for
30
34-63
254
39
64-102
254
39
64-102
254
flow, flow,
1981 Conference. 624 -A
•o
-
-
.
.--
..-
--
-
.
Flow Category
(Evaluator)
Case No.
(Flow No.) Index to the Tape No. of File Files Number
Title
Data Taker
Page
Incompressible Flows (cont.)
I 0151 0152
A. W. M. W.
(M. Acharya)
Two-dimensional channel flow wittl periodic perturbations (0150)I
Perturbation wave in turbulent t shear flow Fully developed turbulent channel flow with imposed controlled oscillations t
Hussain/ Reynolds Acharya/ Reynolds
(P. Bradshaw) P. P.
Hancock/ Bradihaw
0231 0232 0233 0234 0235
2
103-104
86
Boundary layer flows with ( (0230) streamwyse curvature
Turbulent boundary layers on surfaces of 26 mild longitudinal curvature (convex) Turbulent boundary layers on surfaces of 26 mild longitudinal curvature (concave)
105-130
95
105-130
95
J. Gillis/ J. Johnston
Tuihulent boundary layer on a convex, curreA surface
26
131-156
95
I. Hunt/ P. Joubert
Effect!s of small streamline curvature 17t on i .bulent duct flow
157-173
96
A. Smits/S. Young/ P. Bradshaw
The effects of short regions of high surface curvature on turbulent bound~iry layers (convex 30 deg.)
P. P. P. P.
Hoffmann/ Bradshaw Hoffman/ Bradshaw
(L.C. Squire)
. 1 7t
174-190
96
Turbulent boundary layers (0240) with suction or blowing
Zero pressure gradient, constant injection
Il
191-201
114
-
0242
P. Andersen/ W. Kays/R. Noffat
Adverse pressure gradient with constant suction
13
202-214
114
p
0244
A. Favre et al.
Zero pressure gradient with constant (high) suction
11
215-225
114
tNot used for 1981
P
Conference. 625
-i.
-
.1
P. Andersen/ W. Kays/R. Moffat
0241
-
j
(0210)
Effect of free-stream turbulence
(T.W. Simon/ S. Honam!
179
Effect of free-streatn turbu-I lence on boundary layers
0211
178
.,:.*.
.
•..
-.
-
A
(Evaluator)
Flow Category
(Flow
No.)] Index to the Tape
Case No.
Data Taker
No. of Files
Title Incompreisible Flows
(D.A. Humphreys/ B. van den Berg)
File Number
Page
(cont.)
Three-dimensional turbulent boundary layers
(0250)
0251
B. van den Berg/ A. Elsenaav
NLR infinite swept wing experiment
2
0t
226-245
164
0252
L.
Part-rotating cylinder experiment
22t
246-267
164
0253
R1. Dechow
26t
268-293
164
0254
Lohmann,
23
294-316
164
7-333
435
Bissonnette
Cylinder R.
(B.E.
on a flat
test plate
Part-rotating cylinder
Launder/ W. Kodl)
Turbulent Wall Jet
(0260)
0261
Various
Turbulent wall jet data (equilibrium wall jet)
0262
E. Alcaraz; G. Fekete
Turbulent wall jet data (2-dLmensional, on a cyli
0263
D. B.
Turbulent wall jet data (self-preservirg on log-spiral)
17
317-333
438
0264
Various
Turbulent wall jet data (3-dimensional on plane surface)
17
317-333
439
Guitton/ Newman
(K. Sreenivasan)
Relaminarizing flows
17 'sr)
,
437
(0280)
0281
R. Simpson/ D. Wallace
Relaminarizing boundary layer
*
567
0282
J.
Relaminarizing tube flow
*
568
Laufer
(S. 0311
Various
Birch)
Planar mixing layer
(0310)
Planar mixing layer developing from turbulent wall bo,,ndary layers
6
334-339
tNot used for 1981 Conference" This case is not on data tape fot Library 1; it will appear on future revisions. 626
170
Flow C.ategory
(Evaluator)
Case No.
(Flow
No.) Index to the Tape No. of File Fi ei• Number
Title
Data Taker
Page
Incompressible Flows (cont.)
(P.
033i
I. P.
Bradshaw)
Castro/ Bradshaw
R.
Ferz1ger)
G. Comte-Bellot/
0372
S. Corrain R. Wigeland/ H. Nagib
Isotropic
130
72
376-447
327
19
448-466
406
turbulent (0370)j
turbulence
406
M. Uberoi; H. Tucker/A. Reynolds A. Townsend; H.
Return
406
Tucker/A.
Plane strain
406
Axisymmetric strain
407
Sherred turbulence
407
Reynolds
J.
0376
F.Champagne et al.; V. Harris et al.
Tan-atichat
(V.C.
0382
340-375
Rotating turbulence
0375
0381
Homogeneous flows
36
(0360)
The turbulent wake of a body of revolution
0371
0374
Wakes of round bodies
Patel)
Chevray
(J.H.
0373
(0330)
The turbulence structure of a highly curved mixing layer
(V.C.
0361
Free shear layer with streamwise curvature
J.
J.
Patel)
Andreopoulos
to isotropy
bodiWakes of
two-dimensional
(0380)
Measurements of interacting turbulent shear layers in the near wake of an airfoil (symmetric)
Andreopoulos
.1
52
467-518
346
Measurements of interacting turbulent shear layers in the near wake of an airfoil (asymmetric)
350
627
'*
I-L
••
..
.
.
•.
-
-.
,
.
.
-
.
-
.
-:
V..
L
(Evaluator)
Flow Category
(Flow
No.)
i Index to the Tape._
Case Title
Data Taker
No.
Incompressible (B.
0412
0421
.(J.K. EvLon/ J.P. Johnston)
(0410)
flowG
Backward-f.icing flow
Flow over a backward-facing
J. Kim/S. Kline/ J. Johnston
0422
Backward-facing passage
519-537
221 ,
223
+
-1 (0420)
32
step
step;
Backward-facing step; ratio
0424
..
step
Backward-facing step; opposite wall angle
0423
Page
Flows (cont.)
Phase-averaged large-scale structures in 3-dimensional wakes
Perry/ Watmuff
[I
Number
A flying hot-wire study of the turbulent near-wake of a circular cylinder 19 at a Reynolds number of 140,000
B. Cantwell/ D. Coles A. j.
File
Files
Evaluation of bluff-body,
Cartwell)
near-wake 0411
No. of
538-569
275
Xl
variable turned
*
297
4
301
#
304
flow
" I
variable area
__J
(R.L. 0431
R.
Simpson)
Simpson et al.
(A.J.
0441
A. Wadcock/ D. Coles
Diffuser flows (sep.)
(0430)
Separating adverse pressure gradient flow
Wadcock
Two-dimensional airfoil
36
570-605
255
4
606-609
234
stalled (0440)
Flying hot-wire study of 2-dimensional turbulent separation of an NACA 4412 at maximum lift airfoil
tNot used for 1981 Conference. •cedictive
Case P2.
Fredi
*Predictive Case F3.
Zi. ase
i4..
628
0
(Evaluator)
Case No.
Flow Category
Data Taker
(Flow
No.) Index to the Tape No. uf File Files Number
Title Incompressible Flows (cont.)
L]
(P.
0471
Drescher)
P. Viswanath et al.
Flow over the trailing of blades and airfoils
edge (0470)
Dean)
Turbulent
secondary
0512
I. J.
Humphrey
(D.E.
0612
Turbulent flow in bodv Junction
Shabaka
K. Wieghardt
Attached boundary layers (1968 Conference)
135
658-792
140
21
793-813
141
25
814-838
82
(0610)
On the turbulent friction layer
Correlation:
Various
insulated
Rubesin/
Cf/Cfo plate
Supersonic
C.C. Horstman)
.
i
versus M-369
flow over a flat
plate (cooled wall)
Correlation:
Various
Flows
Supersonic flow over a flat (8100) ] plate (insulated wall)
Rubesin/ (M.W. C.C. Horstman)
8201
(8200)
Cf/Cfo versus Tw/Taw
-- constant M
(L.C.
8301
Squire)
G. Thomas
Single curve---not
369
Turbulert boundary layers with suction or blowing at supersonic speeds (8300)
Favorable pressure gradient at supersonic speeds with injection
shown on data tape.
629
ii'i - , -'. "
" '. "
.-- - -" • .
555
an idealized wing-
Compressible
(M.W.
610-657
-
for rising pressure
8101
. 48
(0510)
Turbulent flow in a curved duct of squarp rrng-section
Coles)
.
flo.0
of the first kind 0511
1H
Trailing edge flows at high Reynolds number
(R.B.
Page
.
"
',
7, '
.
,"-. '
.... . "-..
-"
.
..
_
3
839-841
115
(Evaluator)
Flow Category
(Flow
No.) Index to the Tape
Case No.
No. of Data Taker Compressible
I I
(M.W. .C.
Rubesin/ Hoostman/
G.M. 8401 8402 8403
D. J.
Lewis et al.
M. Kussoy
* 8411
F.
Zwarta
8602
Boundary gradient
layer in
Koci
flow
378
9+
846-854
379
47
855-901
380, 388
8
902-909
381, 390
2
910-911
364
31
912-942
487
943-1061
487
(8400)
adverse pressure 4t adverse
pressure
+
Pressure gradient atd Reynolds number effects on compressible turbulent boundary layers in supersonic flow
Boundary layers in an adverse pressure gradient in two-dimensional flow (8410)
Bradshaw)
adverse
Compressibility effects on free-shear layers (8500)
Compressibility effects on freeshear layers
G. Mateer et al. J.
int'nal
layer in
(M.W. Rubesin/ C.C. Horstman)
8601
symmetric
Boundary layer in pressure gradient
Various
842-845
Flows (cont.)
Boundary gradient
(H.W. Rubesin/ C.C. Horstman/ G.M. Lilley)
(P.
8501
et ai.
Page
Boundary layers in an adverse pressure gradient in an axi-
Lilley)
Peake et al.
File Number
riles
Title
Impinged normal shock waveboundary layer interaction at transonic speeds (8600)
I
Normal shock wave/turbulent boundarylayer interaction at tranronic speeds Influence of
free-stream Mach number shock wave-boundary interaction
"on traaaonic layer
"Not used for 1981 Conference. 630
119t
(Evaluator)
Case No.
Flow Category
(Flow
Data Taker
(M.W. Rubesin/ C.C. Horstman)
8612
8623
8632
(8610)
1062-1075
459
J. P.
Transonic bump, M -
44
1076-1119
459
Aerofoil RAE 2822--pressure distribution, 74 boundary layer and wake measurements
1120-1193
524
Supercritical measurements
18
1194-1241
526
Attached and separated comFression corner flow fields in high Reynolds number supersonic flow
50
1242-1291
459
Turbulent boundary-layer/expansion interaction at supersonic speed
32
1292-1323
460
13
1324-1336
460
34
1337-1370
486
Delery/ Le Diuzet
P. F. L.
Melnik)
Cook et al. Spaid/ Stivers
G. Settles et al.
J. J.
Dussauge/ Gaviglio
Rubesin/ Horstman
G. Settles et al.
f 8651
flow over a
14
(M.W. C.C.
8641
(cont.)
Transonic turbulent boundary layer separation on an axisymmnetric buwp
(M.W. Rubesin/ C.C. Horstman) 8631
Transonic bump
Page
W. Bachalo/ D. Johnson
(R.E. 8621
Index to the Tape No. of File Files Number
Title Compressible Flows
8611
No.)
Transonic airfoils
(8620)
airfoil
boundary layer
Compressible flow over deflected surfaces
(8630)
i
Compressible flow over compression corner with reattaching planar shear layer (8640)
Reattaching planar free-shear layer (superscaiz)
(M.W. Rubesin/ C.C. Horstman)
M. Kussoy/ C. Horstman
flow over two-dimensional 1.37
Axisymmetric shock impingement (oupersonic)
1 (8650)
Hypersonic shock wave turbulent boundary-layer interaction-- with and without reparation
631
-
-
-
*
.~
-...
%¶
[
(Evaluagor)
Flow Category
........ (Flow
No.)•
Index
Case
No.
No.
Data Taker
Title Coi,•presslble
to the Tape
of
,
File
Files
Number
"i• Page
Flows (cont.)
i-
--
--
;• " :-' •" ==v .
(M.W C C. '
8661
D.
Rubesin/ |ior.•tman)
S8663
I
Three-dlmensional 9hock impingement (supecsonlc)
(8660)[ °
Peake
Three-dimensional swept ahock/turbulent boundary layer interaction
-,
f,.',
M. Kussoy et al. Investlgatton of three-dimensional shock •eparated turbulent boundary layer 47 S(D.J. Peake/ Pointed a×isymraetrlc bodies .at
DJ.
l
,
486
1378-1424
486
1425-1454
543
•_-"-'•
!1
angle of atlack
•ockrell)
1371-1377
(supersonic)
(8670)
i
I 8671
W.
Ralnblrd
Pointed
angle
] [ 8691
(M.W. Rubesin! C.C. Horstman)
J. McDevltt al.
et
axlsymmetri¢
of attack
bodies
at
(supersonic)
30
Nonllfting, transonic airfoil l with shock separation (8690), i
Non-liftlng transonic airfoil, shock-separated flow
:"I •-•
13
1455-1467
487
,•.# i • -'ql
-...•
!•f.i..
. '--
•
...
;•%° -. °,."
-°
-.
•illl il •.
,
•
-!
•-':-•"
--,. • .
632
- ,,.•.. .>'-il.i- 2.-.:..>v ..- '• .. i•.
. •
-
"
. " . •, i'. "
"
.•
