COMPRESSIBILITY EFFECTS ON TURBULENCE STRUCTURES OF

AXISYMMETRIC MIXING LAYERS

PHYSICS OF FLUIDS (VOLUME 15)BRIAN THUROW, MO SAMIMY AND WALTER LEMPERT

The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210(Received 17 September 2002; accepted 25 February 2003; published 6 May

2003)

Presented by:ANIL THOMAS

SU ID -790273351

OVERVIEW GOAL

FACILITY AND DIAGNOSTICS

EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS

RESULTS a. Flow visualization b. Space-Time correlation results.

DISCUSSION

CONCLUSIONS

GOAL To understand the dynamics of the turbulence structures

in the regime of compressibility.

A real-time flow visualization system that produces 17 images over a time span of 150 microseconds is used to visualize the mixing layers.

Planer space-time correlations are used to track structures as the mixing layer convects downstream, determining their coherence and the changes in convective velocity with increasing compressibility.

Mixing layers of Mach 1.3(Mc=0.59) and Mach 2.0(Mc=0.87) ideally expanded high

Reynolds number axisymmetric jets.

Convective Mach number and Convective Velocity are given by:

Mc= U1-U2 = U1-Uc,i = Uc,i-U2 -----(1) a1+a2 a1 a2 Uc,i= a1U2+a2U1 -----(2) a1+a2 U1&U2 – High and Low speed free stream velocities. a1&a2 - Speeds of sound Uc,i - Theoretical Isentropic convective velocity.

For Mc<0.5, turbulence structures are similar to the incompressible structures. They are two dimensional, coherent, and appear as large span wise rollers. The velocity of such large-scale structures is relatively accurately predicted by Eq.(2).

For Mc>1.0, the flow is highly compressible and turbulence structures exhibit very little resemblance to their incompressible counterparts. Structures are smaller in scale, difficult to identify, more three-dimensional and lack coherence. Convective velocity measurements also deviate greatly from Eq. (2)

The compressibility range of 0.5<Mc<1.0, however, marks a transition between these two distinct regimes. The flow becomes more three-dimensional as Mc is increased from 0.5 toward 1.0, but elements of both incompressible and compressible flows are present, particularly at the lower end of the range. The convective velocity of structures also deviates from Eq. (2).

FACILITY AND DIAGNOSTICS

A jet stand and stagnation chamber to which a variety of nozzles may be attached.

Air is supplied from two four-stage compressors.

The stagnation chamber contains a perforated plate and two screens of varying porosity to condition the flow to be as uniform as possible prior to entering the nozzle.

A pulse burst laser and an ultra high-speed CCD camera were used to take sequences of 17 time-correlated flow visualization images.

For flow visualization, the laser beam was formed into a sheet and was directed through various slices in the flow field. Seeding was provided using product formation where water vapor contained in the warm moist ambient air condensed into nanometer-scale droplets upon entrainment into the jet and mixing with the cold and dry air of the jet core.

EXPERIMENTAL CONDITIONS The laser sheet was arranged to acquire images of both streamwise and cross-stream planes in the flow at a variety of downstream distances ranging from 3 to 12 jet diameters. Important parameters of two axisymmetric jets studied:

Convective velocities were calculated for downstream distances of 5.5 and 8 jet diameters for the Mach 1.3 and 2.0 jets, respectively. These locations are between 55% and 65% of the potential core length and allow structures to develop without interference from the other side of the mixing layer. A Non-dimensional time, t , is defined as

- Jet exit velocity - Local mixing layer thickness - Time between two images obtained using the real-time visualization techniqueThe value of t between each image is nearly same for both jets indicating that similar time span are being examined for both jets.

RESULTS A. FLOW VISUALIZATION:

A typical streamwise image sequence of Mach 1.3 (Mc=0.59) axisymmetric jet

A typical cross-stream image sequence of Mach 1.3 (Mc=0.59) axisymmetric jet at x/D=6

A typical streamwise image sequence of Mach 2.0 (Mc=0.87) axisymmetric jet

A typical cross-stream image sequence of Mach 2.0 (Mc=0.87) axisymmetric jet at x/D=9

B. SPACE-TIME CORRELATION RESULT For a time separation of 10

microseconds, the maximum correlation level has dropped to about 0.83 and is located just under 3mm downstream.

For increasing time separations, the correlation level continues to drop and the peak broadens. At Dt =140 microseconds, the maximum correlation is about 0.18 and the peak is quite broad.

The locations of these Peaks are plotted on an x-t diagram in Fig. 6. The slope of the linear fit through these points is the average convective velocity for the Mach 1.3 jet. The curve fit is very good and the average convective velocity is 266 m/s. This velocity is well abovethe theoretical prediction(Eq.2) of 206 m/s.

As the maximum correlationdecreases and the peak becomes increasingly broad for increased time separations. Starting with a time separation of 80 microseconds, however, a very interesting event happens. This broad peak can now be clearly seen as consisting of two peaks. By individually charting the location of both peaks, two convective velocities can be calculated, a fast mode and a slow mode.

The points marking the fast mode do not appear until a time separation of 72 microsec. The linear fit to these points is quite good and the average convective velocity for the fast mode is 402 m/s while that of the slow mode is 190 m/s. The theoretical valuefor the convective velocity is calculated as 303 m/s, which isabout halfway between the fast mode and the slow mode.

This is a plot of the maximum correlation levels Vs non-dimensional time for both jets. The non-dimensional timewas defined in Eq.(2). The normalization collapses the results onto a single curve very well, except for the fast mode, which has a slightly lower correlation level.

This data include measurements from both the upper and lower halves of the mixing layer and consist of 354 cases. The peak of the histogram is centered at 250 m/s, which is close to the ensemble average convective velocity of 266 m/s, given earlier.

It consists of 151 individual measurements. The fast and slow modes observed in the ensemble-average data are manifested in the bimodal peaks. These peaks are centered at about 175 and 350 m/s and are close to the ensemble average values of 190 and 402 m/s, given earlier.

DISCUSSION With increasing convective Mach number, structures

become less organized and more three dimensional.

Double-pulsed flow visualizations indicate a suppression of interaction between turbulence structures.

There was a decrease in coherence of structures with changing compressibility.

The close match between the curves for Mc=0.59 and 0.87 seems to indicate that structures in either flow field evolve at approximately the same rate, when measured in units of non-dimensional time.

For the Mach 1.3 jet, we observe a fast mode in agreement with the stream selection rule. For the Mach2.0 jet, a fast mode is also observed. Contrary to the stream selection rule, however, a slow mode was also observed for the same flow field.

CONCLUSIONS In the case of the Mach 1.3 jet, tearing and pairing occurred

frequently. These types of events were also observed in the Mach 2.0 jet, but were less frequent and much more difficult to follow.

In both flow fields, the presence of streamwise vortices was observed in cross-stream images of the flow. These vortices seem to play a significant role in mixing layer dynamics, particularly in comparison with planar shear layers.

The lifetime of structures in both mixing layers was found to be about the same when using a non dimensional time scale based on the jet’s exit velocity and the local shear layer thickness.

Ensemble-average results show a single fast mode for the Mach 1.3 jet of 266 m/s, which is significantly higher than the theoretical velocity of 206 m/s. The same technique applied to the Mach 2.0 jet, however, revealed the presence

of both a fast and a slow mode. These were measured to be 402and 190 m/s, respectively.

REFERENCES 1 D. W. Bogdanoff, ‘‘Compressibility effects in turbulent shear layers,’’AIAA J. 21,

926 ~1983!. 2 D. Papamoschou and A. Roshko, ‘‘The compressible turbulent shear layer: An

experimental study,’’ J. Fluid Mech. 197, 453 ~1988!. 3 D. C. Fourgette, M. G. Mungal, and R. W. Dibble, ‘‘Time evolution of the shear

layer of a supersonic axisymmetric jet,’’ AIAA J. 29, 1123 ~1991!. 4 S. Martens, K. W. Kinzie, and D. K. McLaughlin, ‘‘Wave structure of coherent

instabilities in a planar shear layer,’’AIAA Pap. 94-0822 ~1994!. 5 R. Mahadevan, E. Loth, and J. Dutton, ‘‘Effect of an expansion compression wave

pair on free shear layer dynamics,’’AIAA Pap. 95-0475 1995!. 6 J. Poggie and A. J. Smits, ‘‘Large-scale coherent turbulence structures in a

compressible mixing layer flow,’’ AIAA Pap. 96-0436 ~1996!. 7 D. Papamoschou and A. Bunyajitradulya, ‘‘Evolution of large eddies in

compressible shear layers,’’ Phys. Fluids 9, 756 ~1997!. 8 K. M. Smith and J. C. Dutton, ‘‘Evolution and convection of large-scale structures in

supersonic reattaching shear flows,’’ Phys. Fluids 11, 2127~1999!. 9 E. Murakami and D. Papamoschou, ‘‘Eddy convection in coaxial supersonic jets,’’

AIAA J. 38, 628 ~2000!. 10 T. Rossman, M. G. Mungal, and R. K. Hanson, ‘‘An experimental investigation of

high compressibility nonreacting mixing layers,’’ AIAA Pap. 2000-0663 ~2000!. 11 B. Thurow, J. Hileman, W. Lempert, and M. Samimy, ‘‘A technique for real-time

visualization of flow structure in high-speed flows,’’ Phys. Fluids14, 3449 ~2002!. 12 G. S. Elliott, M. Samimy, and S. A. Arnette, ‘‘Study of compressible mixing layers

using filtered Rayleigh scattering based visualizations,’’AIAA J. 30, 2567 ~1992!.

13 G. S. Elliott, M. Samimy, and S. A. Arnette, ‘‘The characteristics and evolution of large-scale structures in compressible mixing layers,’’ Phys. Fluids 7, 864 ~1995!.

14 N. T. Clemens and M. G. Mungal, ‘‘Large-scale structure and entrainment in the supersonic mixing layer,’’ J. Fluid Mech. 284, 171 ~1995!.

15 R. T. Wainner and J. M. Seitzmann, ‘‘Flow evolution measurements from planar image analysis,’’ AIAA Pap. 95-1972 ~1995!.

16 C. J. Bourdon and J. C. Dutton, ‘‘Planar visualizations of large-scale turbulent structures in axisymmetric supersonic separated flows,’’ Phys. Fluids 11, 201 ~1999!.

17 N. T. Clemens and P. H. Paul, ‘‘Scalar measurements in compressible axisymmetric mixing layers,’’ Phys. Fluids 7, 1071 ~1995!.

18 G. L. Brown and A. Roshko, ‘‘On density effects and large structure in turbulent mixing layers,’’ J. Fluid Mech. 64, 775 ~1974!.

19 C. K. W. Tam and F. Q. Hu, ‘‘On the three families of instability waves of high-speed jets,’’ J. Fluid Mech. 201, 447 ~1989!.

20 T. L. Jackson and C. E. Grosch, ‘‘Inviscid spatial stability of a compressible mixing layer,’’ J. Fluid Mech. 28, 609 ~1989!.

21 C. E. Grosch and T. L. Jackson, ‘‘Inviscid spatial stability of a three dimensional compressible mixing layer,’’ J. Fluid Mech. 231, 35 ~1991!.

22 N. D. Sandham and W. C. Reynolds, ‘‘Three-dimensional simulations of large eddies in the compressible mixing layer,’’ J. Fluid Mech. 224, 133 1991!.

23 M. J. Day, W. C. Reynolds, and N. N. Mansour, ‘‘The structure of the compressible reacting mixing layer: insights from linear stability analysis,’’ Phys. Fluids 10, 993 ~1998!.

24 J. Hileman and M. Samimy, ‘‘Turbulence structures and the acoustic far field of a Mach 1.3 jet,’’ AIAA J. 39, 1716 ~2001!.

25 C. Kerechanin, M. Samimy, and J.-H. Kim, ‘‘Effects of nozzle trailing edge modifications on the far-field acoustic radiation in supersonic jets,’’AIAA J. 39, 1065 ~2001!.

26 W. R. Lempert, P. F. Wu, B. Zhang, R. B. Miles, J. L. Lowrance, V. J. Mastocola, and W. F. Kosonocky, ‘‘Pulse burst laser system for high-speed flow diagnostics,’’ AIAA Pap. 96-0179 ~1996!.

27 W. R. Lempert, P. F. Wu, and R. B. Miles, ‘‘Filtered Rayleigh scattering measurements using a MHz rate pulse-burst laser system,’’ AIAA Pap. 97-0500 ~1997!.

28 P. F. Wu, W. R. Lempert, and R. B. Miles, ‘‘MHz pulse burst laser system and visualization of shock-wave/boundary layer interaction in a Mach 2.5 wind tunnel,’’ AIAA J. 38, 672 ~2000!.

29 G. S. Elliott, M. Samimy and S. A. Arnette, ‘‘A study of compressible mixing layers using filtered Rayleigh scattering,’’ AIAA Pap. 92-0175 1992!.

30 E. Murakami and D. Papamoschou, ‘‘Mean flow development in dual stream compressible jets,’’ AIAA J. 40, 1131 ~2002!.

31 K. M. Smith and J. C. Dutton, ‘‘A procedure for turbulent structure convection velocity measurements using time-correlated images,’’ Exp. Fluids27, 244 ~1999!.

32 B. Thurow, ‘‘Development and application of a MHz-rate imaging system on the visualization of turbulence structure in a Mach 1.3 axisymmetric jet,’’ M.S. thesis, The Ohio State University, 2001.

33 C. K. W. Tam and F. Q. Hu, ‘‘The instability and acoustic wave modes of supersonic mixing layers inside a rectangular channel,’’ J. Fluid Mech. 203, 5~1989!.

34 S. A. Ragab and S. Sheen, ‘‘The nonlinear development of supersonic instability waves in a mixing layer,’’ Phys. Fluids A 4, 553 ~1992!.