Experiments in Fluids

, Volume 49, Issue 5, pp 1161–1175 | Cite as

Discretization of the vorticity field of a planar jet

Research Article

Abstract

In data assimilation, information from sensors is used to correct the state variables of a numerical model. This has been used to great advantage by the weather prediction community in the context of direct numerical simulation (DNS) models, but has seen comparatively little use in point-vortex models. This is due in large part to data-processing issues. In order to keep up with the speeds necessary for effective data assimilation, one must extract and discretize the vortex structures from velocity field data in a computationally efficient fashion—i.e., using as few discrete vortices as possible to model the measured flow. This paper describes a new strategy for accomplishing this and evaluates the results using data from a laboratory-scale vortex-dominated planar jet. Large-scale vortex structures are found using a family of variants on traditional vortex extraction methods. By augmenting these methods with simple computational topology techniques, one obtains a new method that finds the boundaries of the coherent structures in a manner that naturally follows the geometry of the flow. This strategy was evaluated in the context of two standard vortex extraction methods, vorticity thresholding and Okubo–Weiss, and tested upon velocity field data from the experimental fluid flow. The large-scale structures found in this manner were then modeled with collections of discrete vortices, and the effects of the grain size of the discretization and the parameters of the discrete vortex model were studied. The results were evaluated by comparing the instantaneous velocity field induced by the discrete vortices to that measured in the jet. These comparisons showed that the two extraction techniques were comparable in terms of sensitivity and error, suggesting that the computationally simpler vorticity thresholding method is more appropriate for applications where speed is an issue, like data assimilation. Comparisons of different discretization strategies showed that modeling each large-scale vortex structure with a single discrete vortex provided the best compromise between mean-squared error and computational effort. These results are of potential interest in any situation where one must balance accuracy and expense while extracting vortices from a snapshot of a flow field; data assimilation is only one example.

Notes

Acknowledgments

the authors wish to thank Jeffrey Anderson, Matthew Culbreth, Nathan Farrell, and Mark Rast for their input to this project.

References

  1. Adrian R, Christiensen K, Liu Z (2000) Analysis and interpretation of instantaneous turbulent velocity fields. Exp Fluids 29:275–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson JL (2010) Personal CommunicationGoogle Scholar
  3. Banks D, Singer B (1995) A predictor-corrector technique for visualizing unsteady flow. IEEE Trans Vis Comput Graph 1(2):151–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barba L (2007) Spectral-like accuracy in space of a meshless vortex method. In: Leitão V (ed) Advances in meshfree techniques. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  5. Barba L, Leonard A, Allen C (2005) Advances in viscous vortex methods—meshless spatial adaption based on radial basis function interpolation. Int J Numer Methods Fluids 47:387–421MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  6. Camussi R (2002) Coherent structure identification from wavelet analysis of particle image velocimetry data. Exp Fluids 32:76–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chong M, Perry A, Cantwell B (1990) A general classification of three-dimensional flow fields. Phys Fluids 2:765–777CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. Chorin A (1973) Numerical study of slightly viscous flow. J Fluid Mech 57:785–796CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. Cottet G-H, Koumoutsakos P (2000) Vortex methods: theory and practice. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Farge M, Schneider K, Kevlahan N (1999) Non-Gaussianity and coherent vortex simulation for two-dimensional turbulence using an adaptive orthogonal wavelet basis. Phys Fluids 11(8):2187–2201MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. Farge M, Schneider K, Pellegrino G, Wray A, Rogallo R (2003) Coherent vortex extraction in three-dimensional homogeneous turbulence: comparison between CVS-wavelet and POD-Fourier decompositions. Phys Fluids 15(10):2886–2896CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. Farrell N (2008) PIV analysis of forcing a planar jet using a loudspeaker. Technical Report CU-CS (Department of Computer Science) 1043-08, University of ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  13. Gustafson K, Sethian J (1991) Vortex methods and vortex motion. Society for Industrial & Applied Mathematics, PhiladelphiaMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Hald O (1991) Convergence of vortex methods. In: Gustafson K, Sethian J (eds) Vortex methods and vortex motion. Society for Industrial & Applied Mathematics, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  15. Haller G (2005) An objective definition of a vortex. J Fluid Mech 525:1–26MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. Harms D, Raman S, Madala R (1992) An examination of four-dimensional data-assimilation techniques for numerical weather prediction. Bull AMS 73:425–440Google Scholar
  17. Hua B, Klein P (1998) An exact criterion for the stirring properties of nearly two-dimensional turbulence. Physica D 113:98–110MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  18. Hua BL, McWilliams J, Klein P (1998) Lagrangian accelerations in geostrophic turbulence. J Fluid Mech 366:87–108MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  19. Hunt J, Wray A, Moin P (1988) Eddies, streams, and convergence zones in turbulent flows. In: Proceedings of the summer program, vol CTR-S88. Stanford University Center for Turbulence Research Report, pp 193–208Google Scholar
  20. Ide K, Ghil M (1997) Extended Kalman filtering for vortex systems. Part I: methodology and point vortices. Dyn Atmos Oceans 27:301–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ide K, Kuznetsov L, Jones C (2002) Lagrangian data assimilation for point vortex systems. J Turb 3:1–7MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  22. Jeong J, Hussain F (1995) On the identification of a vortex. J Fluid Mech 285:69–94MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  23. Joseph R, Viglione S, Wolf H (1964) Cloud pattern recognition. In: Proceedings of the 19th ACM national conference. pp 42.301–42.3017Google Scholar
  24. Lugt H (1979) The dilemma of defining a vortex. In: Muller U, Roesner K, Schmidt B (eds) Recent developments in theoretical and experimental fluid mechanics. Springer, London, pp 309–321Google Scholar
  25. Okubo A (1970) Horizontal dispersion of floatable trajectories in the vicinity of velocity singularities such as convergencies. Deep Sea Res 17:445–454Google Scholar
  26. Palacios A, Armbruster D, Kostelich E, Stone E (1996) Analyzing the dynamics of cellular flames. Physica D 96(1–4):132–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pemberton R, Turnock S, Dodd T, Rogers E (2002) A novel method for identifying vortical structures. J Fluids Struc 16:1051–1057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Preisendorfer R (1988) Principal Component analysis in meteorology and oceanography. Elsevier, NYGoogle Scholar
  29. Raffel M, Willert C, Kompenhans J (1998) Particle image velocimetry: a practical guide. Springer, NYGoogle Scholar
  30. Robins V, Abernethy J, Rooney N, Bradley E (2004) Topology and intelligent data analysis. Intell Data Anal 8:505–515Google Scholar
  31. Robins V, Meiss J, Bradley E (1998) Computing connectedness: an exercise in computational topology. Nonlinearity 11:913–922MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  32. Robins V, Rooney N, Bradley E (2004) Topology-based signal separation. Chaos 14:305–316MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  33. Ross N (2008) Understanding the dynamics of point-vortex data assimilation. PhD thesis, University of ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  34. Scarano F, Benocci C, Riethmuller M (1999) Pattern recognition analysis of the turbulent flow past a backward facing step. Phys Fluids 11(12):3808–3818MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Segur H (1998) Evolution of a tracer gradient in an incompressible, two-dimensional flow. In: IUTAM symposium on developments in geophysical turbulenceGoogle Scholar
  36. Seigel A, Weiss J (1997) A wavelet-packet census algorithm for calculating vortex statistics. Phys Fluids 9(7):1988–1999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shadden S, Lekien F, Marsden J (2005) Definition and properties of Lagrangian coherent structures from finite-time Lyapunov exponents in two-dimensional aperiodic flows. Physica D 212:271–304MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  38. Vollmers H (2001) Detection of vortices and quantitative evaluation of their main parameters from experimental velocity data. Measure Sci Technol 12:1199–1207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Weiss J (1991) The dynamics of enstrophy transfer in 2-dimensional hydrodynamics. Physica D 48:273–294MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Natalie Ross
    • 1
  • Jean Hertzberg
    • 2
  • Elizabeth Bradley
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of ColoradoBoulderUSA
  2. 2.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of ColoradoBoulderUSA

Personalised recommendations