Advertisement

Experiments in Fluids

, 59:73 | Cite as

Multiplane particle shadow velocimetry to quantify integral length scales

  • Christine Truong
  • Steven S. Hinkle
  • Jeff R. Harris
  • Michael H. Krane
  • Kyle M. Sinding
  • Rhett W. Jefferies
  • Tiffany A. Camp
  • Arnie A. Fontaine
Research Article

Abstract

The integral length scale can be calculated from planar particle image velocimetry (PIV) data by integrating a two-point velocity correlation over a range of in-plane spatial separations. However, the field of view restricts the integral scale that can be measured by limiting the integration domain. This limitation can be overcome if multiple planes are imaged, and velocity is correlated along the out-of-plane direction. Multiplane particle shadow velocimetry (PSV) is introduced for this purpose. A backlight is used to illuminate particles in the flow field, rather than a laser sheet as in PIV. These illuminated particles obstruct light from entering the camera, thus appearing dark. The combination of two colors in the backlight and a dichroic mirror makes possible the simultaneous imaging of two planes. Separated along the the out-of-plane direction (the optical axis), the multiple imaged planes allow for an integral length scale to be measured independent of the field of view. Experiments were conducted in the axisymmetric 285 mm diameter glycerin tunnel at Penn State’s Applied Research Laboratory. Turbulence statistics calculated using multiplane PSV are consistent with those obtained using planar PSV and laser Doppler velocimetry (LDV) at the same facility. The temporal autocorrelation and the integral timescale, measured with planar and multiplane PSV, agree within 95% confidence. The two-point velocity correlation separated spatially along the in-plane radial direction is the same, within 95% confidence, as that separated spatially along the out-of-plane radial direction. The former is insufficient for calculating an integral length scale due to its limited domain. Integrating the latter yields an integral length scale equal to 11% of the radius of the tunnel.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the many sponsors who motivated and funded this work, the Walker Fellowship program, and ISSI for initially developing the measurement method. Discussions with Michael McPhail are also gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. Abdel-Gayed RG, Bradley D (1980) Turbulent length scales and the turbulent transport number for isotropic turbulence. J Fluids Eng 102:389.  https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3240708 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bakewell HP (1966) An experimental investigation of the viscous sublayer in a turbulent pipe flow. PhD thesis, Pennsylvania State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  3. Benedict HL, Gould DR (1996) Towards better uncertainty estimates for turbulence statistics. Exp Fluids 22(2):129–136.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s003480050030 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cenedese A, Romano GP, Di Felice F (1991) Experimental testing of taylor’s hypothesis by l.d.a. in highly turbulent flow. Exp Fluids 11(6):351–358.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00211789 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chevrin P, Petrie H, Deustch S (1990) The structure of reynolds stress in the near wall region of a turbulent pipe flow. PhD thesis, Pennsylvania State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  6. Elsinga GE, Scarano F, Wieneke B, van Oudheusden BW (2006) Tomographic particle image velocimetry. Exp Fluids 41(6):933–947.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00348-006-0212-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eriksson JG, Karlsson RI (1995) An investigation of the spatial resolution requirements for two-point correlation measurements using LDV. Exp Fluids 18(5):393–396.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00211398 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Estevadeoral J, Goss L (2005) PIV with LED: particle shadow velocimetry (PSV). AIAA, RenoGoogle Scholar
  9. Fontaine A, Deutsch S (1993) Suppression of the Near Wall Burst Process of a Fully Developed Turbulent Pipe Flow. PhD thesis, Pennyslvania State UniversityGoogle Scholar
  10. Fontaine AA, Deutsch S (1995) Three-component, time-resolved velocity statistics in the wall region of a turbulent pipe flow. Exp Fluids 18(3):168–173.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00230261 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goss L, Estevadeordal J (2006) Parametric characterization for particle-shadow velocimetry (psv). In: 25th AIAA Aerodynamic Measurement Technology and Ground Testing ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  12. Gould RD, Benedict LH (1994) Comparison of length scale estimates for a sudden expansion flow estimated from spatial and auto correlation LDV measurements. Exp Fluids 17(4):285–287.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00203049 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Harris JR, Truong C, McPhail MJ (2017) Effects of the depth of field on particle shadow velocimetry measurements. Verification and Validation Symposium, ASME, Las Vegas, NV. https://www.asme.org/wwwasmeorg/media/ResourceFiles/Events/VandV/V-V2017_Program_compress.pdf. Accessed Jan 2018
  14. Hinsch KD (2002) Holographic particle image velocimetry. Measurement Science and Technology 13(7):R61. http://stacks.iop.org/0957-0233/13/i=7/a=201
  15. Hu H, Saga T, Kobayashi T, Taniguchi N, Yasuki M (2001) Dual-plane stereoscopic particle image velocimetry: system set-up and its application on a lobed jet mixing flow. Exp Fluids 31(3):277–293.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s003480100283 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kamruzzaman M, Lutz T, Kraemer E, Wuerz W (2011) On the Length Scales of Turbulence forAeroacoustic Applications. AIAA, Portland, OR,  https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2011-2734 Google Scholar
  17. Kendall A, Koochesfahani M (2007) A method for estimating wall friction in turbulent wall-bounded flows. Exp Fluids 44(5):773–780.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00348-007-0433-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. LaVision GMBH (2015) DaVis version 8.3.0. Goettingen, Germany. http://www.lavision.de/en/techniques/piv.php. Accessed Feb 2016
  19. McPhail MJ, Fontaine AA, Krane MH, Goss L, Crafton J (2015) Correcting for Color Crosstalk and Chromatic Aberration in Multicolor Particle Shadow Velocimetry. Measurement Science and Technology 26(2):  https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-0233/26/2/025302
  20. Oberkampf WL, Roy CJ (2010) Verification and validation in scientific computing. Cambridge University Press, CambridgesCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. O’Neill PL, Nicolaides D, Honnery D, Soria J (2004) Autocorrelation functions and the determination of integral length with reference to experimental and numerical data. AFMS, SyndeyGoogle Scholar
  22. Romano GP (1995) Analysis of two-point velocity measurements in near-wall flows. Exp Fluids 20(2):68–83.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01061584 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tennekes H, Lumley JL (1972) A first course in turbulence. The MIT Press, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Truong C, Harris JR, McPhail MJ (2018) The effect of out-of-plane shear within the depth of correlation in macroscopic planar particle shadow velocimetry. AIAA, Kissimmee, FL,  https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2018-2035
  25. Wieneke B (2015) PIV uncertainty quantification from correlation statistics. Meas Sci Technol 26(7):074002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Willert CE, Gharib M (1991) Digital particle image velocimetry. Exp Fluids 10(4):181–193.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00190388 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Wilson BM, Smith BL (2013) Taylor-series and Monte-Carlo-method uncertainty estimation of the width of a probability distribution based on varying bias and random error. Meas Sci Technol 24(3):035301CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Penn State UniversityState CollegeUSA
  2. 2.General ElectricGreenvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations