Design and validation of a nanoscale cross-wire probe (X-NSTAP)

Abstract

A nano-sized crossed thermal anemometer (X-NSTAP) was developed and validated for measurements of two-components of velocity at high Reynolds numbers. The new sensor design is based on the single-component nanoscale thermal anemometry probe (NSTAP) previously used to acquire streamwise velocity measurements at high Reynolds numbers. The new sensor can, simultaneously, measure two components of velocity with a spatial resolution of \(42\times 42\times 50 \, \upmu {\text {m}}\), an order of magnitude smaller in each dimension than conventional cross-wires. The new X-NSTAP design features several structural and manufacturing modifications to improve the aerodynamic performance of the sensor compared to previous nanoscale cross-wire designs. The effects of different manufacturing modifications were evaluated using dye visualizations over scale models of the sensor tip. The pitch sensitivity of the final sensor design was evaluated in an open-loop wind-tunnel and was comparable to the single-component NSTAP design. The X-NSTAP was then deployed in the Princeton Superpipe to acquire axial and radial velocity measurements up to friction Reynolds numbers, \(Re_\tau = 24{,}000\) with good agreement to existing studies.

Graphical abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Image adapted from Fan et al. (2015)

Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

References

  1. Ahn J, Lee JH, Jang SJ, Sung HJ (2013) Direct numerical simulations of fully developed turbulent pipe flows for \(\text{ Re }\tau =180\), 544 and 934. Int J Heat Fluid Flow 44:222–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Ahn J, Lee JH, Lee J, Kang Jh, Sung HJ (2015) Direct numerical simulation of a 30R long turbulent pipe flow at \(\text{ Re }\tau = 3008\). Phys Fluids 27(6):065110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Baidya R, Philip J, Hutchins N, Monty JP, Marusic I (2017) Distance-from-the-wall scaling of turbulent motions in wall-bounded flows. Phys Fluids 10(1063/1):4974354

    Google Scholar 

  4. Bailey SCC, Kunkel GJ, Hultmark M, Vallikivi M, Hill JP, Meyer KA, Tsay C, Arnold CB, Smits AJ (2010) Turbulence measurements using a nanoscale thermal anemometry probe. J Fluid Mech 663:160–179. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022112010003447

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  5. Bradshaw P (1971) An introduction to turbulence and its measurement. Pergamon Press, Oxford, New York, pp 106–133

    Book  Google Scholar 

  6. Bruun HH (1995) Hot-wire anemometry: principles and signal analysis. Oxford University Press, pp 89–158. ISBN: 0198563426, 9780198563426

  7. Chen J, Fan Z, Zou J, Engel J, Liu C (2003) Two-dimensional micromachined flow sensor array for fluid mechanics studies. J Aerosp Eng 16(2):85–97

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fan Y (2017) High resolution instrumentation for flow measurements. Ph.D. thesis, Princeton University

  9. Fan Y, Arwatz G, Van Buren TW, Hoffman DE, Hultmark M (2015) Nanoscale sensing devices for turbulence measurements. Exp Fluids 56(7):138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Hultmark M, Ashok A, Smits AJ (2011) A new criterion for end-conduction effects in hot-wire anemometry. Meas Sci Technol 22(5):055401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Hultmark M, Vallikivi M, Bailey SCC, Smits AJ (2013) Logarithmic scaling of turbulence in smooth- and rough-wall pipe flow. Journal of Fluid Mechanics 728:376–395

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Hultmark MN, Vallikivi M, Bailey SCC, Smits AJ (2012) Turbulent pipe flow at extreme Reynolds numbers. Phys Rev Lett 108(9):1–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hutchins N, Nickels T, Marusic I, Chong MS (2009) Hot-wire spatial resolution issues in wall-bounded turbulence. J Fluid Mech 635:103–136

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Ligrani PM, Bradshaw P (1987a) Spatial resolution and measurement of turbulence in the viscous sublayer using subminiature hot-wire probes. Exp Fluids 5(6):407–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ligrani PM, Bradshaw P (1987b) Subminiature hot-wire sensors: development and use. J Phys E Sci Instrum 20(3):323–332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Löfdahl L, Stemme G, Johansson B (1992) Silicon based flow sensors used for mean velocity and turbulence measurements. Exp Fluids 12(4):270–276. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00187305

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. McKeon BJ, Smits AJ (2002) Static pressure correction in high Reynolds number fully developed turbulent pipe flow. Meas Sci Technol 13:1608–1614. https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-0233/13/10/314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. McKeon BJ, Li J, Jiang W, Morrison JF, Smits AJ (2003) Pitot probe corrections in fully developed turbulent pipe flow. Meas Sci Technol 14(8):1449–1458

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. McKeon BJ, Swanson CJ, Zagarola MV, Donnelly RJ, Smits AJ (2004) Friction factors for smooth pipe flow. J Fluid Mech 511:41–44

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Örlü R, Fiorini T, Segalini A, Bellani G, Talamelli A, Alfredsson PH (2017) Reynolds stress scaling in pipe flow turbulence first results from CICLoPE. Philo Trans R Soc Lond A Math Phys Eng Sci 375(2089):20160187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Österlund JM, Johansson AV (1995) Dynamic behavior of hot-wire probes in turbulent boundary layers. In: Benzi R (ed) Advances in turbulence V. fluid mechanics and its applications, vol 24. Springer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  22. Perry AE, Henbest S, Chong MS (1986) A theoretical and experimental study of wall turbulence. J Fluid Mech 165:163–199

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Samie M, Marusic I, Hutchins N, Fu MK, Fan Y, Hultmark M, Smits AJ (2018) Fully resolved measurements of turbulent boundary layer flows up to Re \(\tau = 20 000\). J Fluid Mech 851:391–415

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Shen YG, Mai YW, Zhang QC, McKenzie DR, McFall WD, McBride WE (1999) Residual stress, microstructure, and structure of tungsten thin films deposited by magnetron sputtering. J Appl Phys 87(1):177. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.371841

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Sinhuber M, Bewley GP, Bodenschatz E (2017) Dissipative effects on inertial-range statistics at high reynolds numbers. Phys Rev Lett 119:134502. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.134502

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Smits AJ, Monty JP, Hultmark M, Bailey SCC, Hutchins N, Marusic I (2011) Spatial resolution correction for wall-bounded turbulence measurements. J Fluid Mech 676(2011):41–53. https://doi.org/10.1017/jfm.2011.19

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  27. Townsend AA (1976) The structure of turbulent shear flow. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New York

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  28. Vallikivi M, Smits AJ (2014) Fabrication and characterization of a novel nanoscale thermal anemometry probe. J Microelectromech Syst 23(4):899–907. https://doi.org/10.1109/JMEMS.2014.2299276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Vallikivi M, Hultmark M, Bailey SCC, Smits AJ (2011) Turbulence measurements in pipe flow using a nano-scale thermal anemometry probe. Exp Fluids 51(6):1521–1527

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Vallikivi M, Hultmark M, Smits AJ (2012) Turbulence measurements at high Reynolds numbers using a new inclined nano-scale thermal anemometry probe. In: 18th Australasian fluid mechanics conference, Launceston, Australia, 3–7 Dec 2012

  31. Vallikivi M, Ganapathisubramani B, Smits AJ (2015) Spectral scaling in boundary layers and pipes at very high Reynolds numbers. J Fluid Mech 771:303–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Willert CE, Soria J, Stanislas M, Klinner J, Amili O, Eisfelder M, Cuvier C, Bellani G, Fiorini T, Talamelli A (2017) Near-wall statistics of a turbulent pipe flow at shear Reynolds numbers up to 40000. J Fluid Mech 826:R5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Willmarth WW, Sharma LK (1984) Study of turbulent structure with hot wires smaller than the viscous length. J Fluid Mech 142:121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Zagarola MV (1996) Mean-flow scaling of turbulent pipe flow. Ph. D. thesis, Princeton University

  35. Zagarola MV, Smits AJ (1998) Mean-flow scaling of turbulent pipe flow. J Fluid Mech 373:S0022112098002419

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Zhao R, Smits AJ (2007) Scaling of the wall-normal turbulence component in high-Reynolds-number pipe flow. J Fluid Mech 576:457–473

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Zhao R, Li J, Smits A (2004) A new calibration method for crossed hot wires. Meas Sci Technol 15(9):1926–1931

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by under NSF Grant CBET-1510100 (program manager Ron Joslin) and the Office of Naval Research (ONR) Grant N00014-17-2309. M. K. F. was supported by the Department of Defense (DoD) through the National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate Fellowship (NDSEG) Program. The authors would like to thank Dan Hoffman and Janik Kiefer for their assistance in aligning and assembling the Princeton Superpipe facility and instrumentation. The authors would especially like to thank Prof. Alexander Smits for his indispensable insight and assistance. All probes were manufactured in the Micro/Nano Fabrication Laboratory (MNFL) at Princeton University.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew K. Fu.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix A: “Stress-Calibration” method of Zhao et al. (2004)

Appendix A: “Stress-Calibration” method of Zhao et al. (2004)

In this study, the “stress-calibration” method of Zhao et al. (2004) was to calibrate the angle sensitivity of the two X-NSTAP wires, the major details of which are reproduced below. For a hot-wire inclined with respect to the incoming flow, the “effective” cooling velocity, \(u_e\), as determined from the hot-wire output voltage is assumed to be geometrically related to the instantaneous velocity components by an effective cooling angle, \(\phi\), by the cosine law of cooling (see Bradshaw 1971).

In a fully developed pipe flow where \(\overline{u_r} = 0\), the instantaneous velocities in the coordinate system of the pipe can be geometrically related to the effective cooling velocity by

$$\begin{aligned} u_{e1}&= \overline{u_z} \cos \phi _1 +u_z'\cos \phi _1+u_r'\sin \phi _1 ,\end{aligned}$$
(1)
$$\begin{aligned} u_{e2}&= \overline{u_z} \cos \phi _2 +u_z'\cos \phi _2-u_r'\sin \phi _2, \end{aligned}$$
(2)

where subscripts 1 and 2 denote the cooling velocities and angles for the two different wires in the probe, overlines denote the time-averaged quantity, and \('\) denotes the fluctuating component about the mean value. If one assumes that the local turbulence is spatio-temporally resolved by each wire and the cooling angles are independent of Reynolds number, then Eqs. (1) and (2) can be expressed as

$$\begin{aligned} u_{e1}\cos ^{-1}\phi _1&= \overline{u_z} +u_z'+u_r'\tan \phi _1 = f(E_1,\phi _1) , \end{aligned}$$
(3)
$$\begin{aligned} u_{e2}\cos ^{-1}\phi _2&= \overline{u_z} +u_z'-u_r'\tan \phi _2 = g(E_2,\phi _2), \end{aligned}$$
(4)

where f and g functions that relate the anemometer output voltage, E, for the different wires to the effective cooling velocity. Since \(\phi\) is assumed to be a constant for each wire, the calibration functions can be represented as fourth-order polynomials (Bruun (1995)) given by

$$\begin{aligned} f(E_1)&= \sum _{i=0}^{4} a_i E_1^i, \end{aligned}$$
(5)
$$\begin{aligned} g(E_2)&= \sum _{i=0}^{4} b_i E_2^i, \end{aligned}$$
(6)

where the explicit dependence of f and g on \(\phi _1\) and \(\phi _2\) into absorbed into the calibration constants, \(a_i\) and \(b_i\). Time averaging Eqs. (5) and (6) yields

$$\begin{aligned} \overline{f}&= \overline{u_z} = \sum _{i=0}^{4} a_i \overline{E_1^i}, \end{aligned}$$
(7)
$$\begin{aligned} \overline{g}&= \overline{u_z} = \sum _{i=0}^{4} b_i \overline{E_2^i}, \end{aligned}$$
(8)

which relates the mean anemometer output to the mean streamwise velocity. Using Eqs. (7) and (8), the calibration coefficients can be determined by varying the mean velocity, \(U_z\), and anemometer output, E. Here, calibration was by placing the hot-wire probe and a Pitot tube symmetrically about the pipe centerline where the mean velocity gradient is negligible and turbulence intensity is low and varying the tunnel speed.

While the streamwise sensitivity of the individual wires has been established, one still needs to determine the cooling angles, \(\phi _1\) and \(\phi _2\), to fully relate the anemometer outputs to the instantaneous velocity components. Here, we will use the known distribution of the total stress, \(\tau _T\), in fully-developed, incompressible, turbulent pipe flow to determine, \(\phi _1\) and \(\phi _2\). For a smooth pipe, the total stress distribution is given by

$$\begin{aligned} \frac{\tau _T}{\rho } = u_\tau ^2 = \overline{u_z u_r} - \nu \frac{{\text {d}} U_z}{{\text {d}}r} =-\frac{1}{2\rho }\frac{{\text {d}}P}{{\text {d}}z}(r), \end{aligned}$$
(9)

where \({\text {d}}P/{\text {d}}z\) is the streamwise pressure-gradient. Considering the fluctuation components of Eqs. (3) and (4) gives

$$\begin{aligned}&u_z'+u_r'\tan \phi _1 = f-\overline{f}=f', \\&u_z'-u_r'\tan \phi _2 = g-\overline{g}=g', \end{aligned}$$

which can be expressed as

$$\begin{aligned}&u_z'+ \zeta u_r' = \frac{1}{2}(f'+g'), \end{aligned}$$
(10)
$$\begin{aligned}&\xi u_r' = \frac{1}{2}(f'-g'), \end{aligned}$$
(11)

where

$$\begin{aligned}&\zeta =\frac{1}{2}(\tan \phi _1-\tan \phi _2) , \end{aligned}$$
(12)
$$\begin{aligned}&\xi = \frac{1}{2}(\tan \phi _1+\tan \phi _2) . \end{aligned}$$
(13)

Multiplying both Eqs. (10) and (11) by (11) and averaging gives

$$\begin{aligned}&\xi \overline{u_z'u_r'}+ \zeta \xi \overline{u_r'^2} = \frac{1}{4}(\overline{f'^2}-\overline{g'^2}) ,\end{aligned}$$
(14)
$$\begin{aligned}&\xi ^2 \overline{u_r'^2} = \frac{1}{4}\overline{(f'-g')^2}. \end{aligned}$$
(15)

Through simple rearranging, Eq. (10) can be substituted into Eq. (11) giving

$$\begin{aligned} \xi ^2\overline{u_z' u_r'} = \frac{\xi }{4}(\overline{f'^2}-\overline{g'^2}) - \frac{\zeta }{4}(\overline{f'^2-g'^2}). \end{aligned}$$
(16)

To determine \(\zeta\) and \(\chi\), one simply gathers and computes the fluctuating statistics corresponding to \(\overline{f'^2}\), \(\overline{g'^2}\), and \(\overline{f'^2-g'^2}\) at different radial locations in the pipe where the viscous stress contribution is negligible. Conveniently this can be accomplished during the course of a typical experimental measurement, making angular calibration and data acquisition one and the same. Since the Reynolds shear stress component can be determined from the pressure-gradient and radial location in this region, the only unknowns left in Eq. (16) are \(\zeta\) and \(\chi\). Substituting the measurements from the different radial locations into Eq. (16) and conducting a nonlinear curve fit allows us to determine the error minimizing values for \(\zeta\) and \(\chi\) and by extension, \(\phi _1\) and \(\phi _2\). Once the cooling angles are known, the fluctuating velocity components, \(u_z'\) and \(u_r'\), can be related to the \(f'\) and \(g'\) through

$$\begin{aligned}&u_z'=\frac{f'+g'}{2}-\frac{\zeta (f'-g')}{2\xi } , \end{aligned}$$
(17)
$$\begin{aligned}&u_r' = \frac{(f'-g')}{2\xi }. \end{aligned}$$
(18)

If the wires suffer from low Péclet number effects, the individual wire signals will be correlated to each other as one wire heats the other, and vice versa. Compared to the radial velocity measurements, the thermal correlation is not expected to significantly influence the axial velocity measurements. Since the probe is calibrated using varying streamwise velocities, the thermal correlation between the wires is explicitly accounted for in the mean velocity measurements. From Eq. (18), one can see that the radial measurements will be strongly impacted by the thermal correlation between the wires as the difference between the wire signals will be materially diminished. However, Eq. (17) shows that the fluctuating component of the axial velocity is computed using both the sum and difference between the two fluctuating wire signals, \(f'\) and \(g'\), the former of which is larger in magnitude and proportionally less affected by this consideration.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fu, M.K., Fan, Y. & Hultmark, M. Design and validation of a nanoscale cross-wire probe (X-NSTAP). Exp Fluids 60, 99 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00348-019-2743-0

Download citation