Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T21:13:12.050Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of the basic systems of equations for turbulence measurements using the Monte Carlo technique

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 April 2006

M. K. Swaminathan ,
G. W. Rankin  and
K. Sridhar
M. K. Swaminathan
Affiliation:
Fluid Dynamics Research Institute and Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada N9B 3P4
G. W. Rankin
Affiliation:
Fluid Dynamics Research Institute and Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada N9B 3P4
K. Sridhar
Affiliation:
Fluid Dynamics Research Institute and Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada N9B 3P4
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A numerical experiment has been carried out to evaluate two of the methods available for finding the time-averaged mean velocity and the Reynolds stresses of a turbulent flow field using hot wires. The conventional method is based on the series expansion of the response equation, subsequent truncation of the series and time averaging. The improved method is based on squaring and time averaging without neglecting any terms. The method adopted to evaluate these two methods is based on the Monte Carlo simulation of a pseudo turbulent flow field using random-number generators and the corresponding hot-wire response, for a prescribed set of conditions, by assuming an appropriate model for the hot-wire response. The simulated hot-wire response and the calibration constants are then perturbed about their mean values to study the effects of errors in these quantities. The perturbed response is used to compute the time-averaged flow field by the two methods. The deviation of these values from the generated pseudo values, averaged over large number of trials, is used as the criterion to evaluate the methods. This procedure is also used to estimate the errors due to truncation in the conventional method, to study the effect of turbulence-intensity levels and to study the effects of measurement errors. The results indicate that the choice of the method for determining the time-averaged quantities should be based on the turbulence-intensity level and the measurement errors likely to be encountered. The conventional method yields reliable mean-velocity results for turbulence intensities as high as 50% with second-order turbulence correction. If measurement errors are within reasonable limits and the turbulence level is below 20%, the conventional method yields reliable results for Reynolds stresses. The improved method should be used to determine the time-averaged flow field for turbulence intensity above 40–50%. The error in the yaw sensitivity parameter k has an insignificant effect on the mean velocity and Reynolds stresses computed by both methods. By accurately determining the sensitivity s of the hot wire, the accuracy of the measured mean velocity and Reynolds stresses can be improved significantly. An improved method of carrying out the uncertainty analysis for measurements, based on the Monte Carlo technique, has also been outlined.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 170 , September 1986 , pp. 1 - 19
Copyright
© 1986 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acrivlellis M.1977 Hot-wire measurements in flows of low and high turbulence intensity. DISA Information no. 22, pp. 15–20.Google Scholar
Bartenwerfer M.1979 Remarks on hot-wire anemometry using squared signals. DISA Information no. 24, 4 and 40–42.Google Scholar
Brown G. W.1956 Monte Carlo methods, Modern Mathematics for the Engineer. Chap. 12, pp. 279–303. University of California Extension Series.
Champagne, F. H. & Sleicher C. A.1967 Turbulence measurements with inclined hot-wires. Part 2. Hot-wire response equations. J. Fluid Mech. 28, 177–182.Google Scholar
Guitton D. E.1968 Correction of hot-wire data for high intensity turbulence, longitudinal cooling and probe interference. McGill University, Mech. Eng. Dept. Rep. No. 68–6.Google Scholar
Hamming R. W.1962 Numerical methods for Scientists and Engineers. McGraw-Hill.
Heskestad G.1965 Hot-wire measurements in a plane turbulent jet. Trans. ASME E: J. Appl. Mech. 32, 721–734.Google Scholar
Hinze J. O.1959 Turbulence, pp. 96–119. McGraw-Hill.
Jorgensen F. E.1971 Directional sensitivity of wire and fiber film probes. DISA Information No. 11, pp. 31–37.Google Scholar
King L. V.1914 On the convection of heat from small cylinders in a stream of fluid Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A 214, 373–32.Google Scholar
Krutchkoff; R. G. 1967 Classical and inverse regression methods of calibration. Technometrics 9, 425–439.Google Scholar
Moffat R. J.1982 Contribution to the theory of single-sample uncertainty analysis. Trans. ASME I: J. Fluids Engng 104, 250–260.Google Scholar
Moussa, Z. M. & Eskinazi S.1975 Directional mean flow measurements using a single inclined hot wire. Phys. Fluids 18, 298–305.Google Scholar
Rodi W.1975 A new method of analysing hot-wire signals in highly turbulent flow and its evaluation in a round jet. DISA Information No. 17, pp. 9–18.Google Scholar
Sampath S., Ganesan, V. & Gowda B. H. L.1982 Improved method for the measurement of turbulence quantities. AIAA J. 20, 148–149.Google Scholar
Sampath S., Ganesan, V. & Gowda B. H. L.1983 Reply by authors to Swaminathan, Rankin and Sridhar. AIAA J. 21, 476–477.Google Scholar
Schlichting H.1968 Boundary-Layer Theory, 6th edn., pp. 527–528. McGraw-Hill.
Swaminathan M. K., Raskin, G. W. & Sridhar K.1984 Some studies on hot-wire calibration using Monte Carlo technique. J. Phys. E: Sci. Instrum. 17, 1148–1151.Google Scholar
Wygnanski, I. & Fiedler H.1969 Some measurements in the self-preserving jet. J. Fluid Mech. 38, 577–612.Google Scholar