Advertisement

Statistics and Scaling of the Velocity Field in Turbulent Thermal Convection

  • Ke-Qing Xia
  • Sheng-Qi Zhou
  • Chao Sun
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Physics book series (SPPHY, volume 101)

Abstract

The statistics and scaling properties of the velocity field in turbulent Rayleigh-Bénard convection in water has been measured using both laser Doppler velocimetry (LDV) and particle image velocimetry (PIV) techniques. It is found that results from both techniques for the mean velocity and all the statistical quantities examined agree with each other. The measurements reveal that the pdfs for the velocity are non-Gaussian in the cell center but more close to Gaussian near the cell boundaries. In addition, the Reynolds shear stress is found to have different signs near the sidewall and near the plates of the cell, suggesting that different mechanisms are responsible for driving the mean flow at different locations of the cell. Moreover, our results confirm a prediction of a recent model by Grossmann & Lohse, in which flow geometries are classified according to the shape of the container.

Keywords

Particle Image Velocimetry Reynolds Stress Convection Cell Particle Image Velocimetry Measurement Reynolds Shear Stress 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Heslot F., Castaing B., Libchaber A. (1987) Phys. Rew. A 36(12):5870–5873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Castaing B., Gunaratne G., Heslot F., Kadnoff L.P., Libchaber A., Thomae S., Wu X.Z., Zaleski S., Zanetti G. (1989) J. Fluid Mech. 204:1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Grossmann S, Lohse D (2000) J. Fluid Mech. 407:27–56.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kadanoff L.P. (2001) Phys. Today 54(8):34–39.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Xia K.Q., Sun C., Zhou S.Q. (2003) Phys. Rev. E 68:066303(1–18).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Krishnamurti R., Howard L. N. (1981), Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 78:1981–1985.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burr U., Kinzelbach W., Tsinober A. (2003) Phys. Fluids 15:2313–2320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Qiu X.-L., Tong P. (2001) Phys. Rev. E 64:036304 (1–13).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Daya Z.A., Ecke R.E. (2001) Phys. Rev. Lett. 87: 184501(1–4).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Qiu X.-L., Xia K.-Q. (1998) Phys. Rev. E 58:486–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Xin Y.B., Xia K.-Q., Tong P. (1996) Phys. Rev. Lett. 77:1266–1269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lam S., Shang X.-D., Zhou S.-Q., Xia K.-Q. (2002) Phys. Rev. E 65:066306(1–8).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Grossmann S., Lohse D. (2003) J. Fluid Mech. 486:105–114.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ke-Qing Xia
    • 1
  • Sheng-Qi Zhou
    • 1
  • Chao Sun
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PhysicsThe Chinese University of Hong KongShatin, Hong KongChina

Personalised recommendations