0
Technical Brief

Measurement of Transitional Surface Roughness Effects on Flat-Plate Boundary Layer Transition

[+] Author and Article Information
Heechan Jeong

Mechanical Engineering,
Seoul National University,
Gwanak-ro 1, Gwanak-gu,
Seoul 08826, South Korea
e-mail: jhc891012@snu.ac.kr

Seung Woo Lee

Mechanical Engineering,
Seoul National University,
Gwanak-ro 1, Gwanak-gu,
Seoul 08826, South Korea
e-mail: krisjohn123@snu.ac.kr

Seung Jin Song

Mechanical Engineering;Institute of Advanced Machines and Design,
Seoul National University,
Gwanak-ro 1, Gwanak-gu,
Seoul 08826, South Korea
e-mail: sjsong@snu.ac.kr

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF FLUIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received March 29, 2018; final manuscript received November 29, 2018; published online January 14, 2019. Assoc. Editor: Pierre E. Sullivan.

J. Fluids Eng 141(7), 074501 (Jan 14, 2019) (7 pages) Paper No: FE-18-1145; doi: 10.1115/1.4042258 History: Received March 29, 2018; Revised November 29, 2018

An experimental study has been conducted to investigate the effects of transitionally rough surface on the flat-plate boundary layer transition. Transitional boundary layers with three different flat plates (ks+ = 0.07 ∼ 0.19, 2.71 ∼ 7.05, and 13.65 ∼ 41.09) have been measured with a single-sensor hot-wire probe. All of the measurements have been conducted under zero pressure gradient (ZPG) at the fixed Reynolds number (ReL) and freestream turbulence intensity (Tu) of 3.05 × 106 and 0.2%. Transitionally, rough surface does not affect the sigmoidal distribution of turbulence intermittency model; but induces earlier transition onset and shortens the transition length. For all surfaces, streamwise turbulence intensity profiles with similar values of turbulence intermittency are similar for the transition length less than 60%. Therefore, mean velocity profiles with the similar values of turbulence intermittency are similar regardless of surface conditions. However, downstream of 60% of the transition length, mean velocity defect increases as the surface roughness increases. Enhanced diffusion of turbulent kinetic energy from the near wall (y/δ < 0.1) to the outer part (y/δ ≈ 0.4) of the boundary layer due to the surface roughness is responsible for the increased momentum deficit.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2019 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Tarada, F. , and Suzuki, M. , 1993, “ External Heat Transfer Enhancement to Turbine Blading Due to Surface Roughness,” ASME Paper No. 93-GT-074.
Bons, J. P. , 2010, “ A Review of Surface Roughness Effects in Gas Turbines,” ASME J. Turbomach., 132(2), p. 021004. [CrossRef]
Koch, C. C. , and Smith, L. H. , 1976, “ Loss Sources and Magnitudes in Axial-Flow Compressors,” ASME J. Eng. Power, 98(3), pp. 411–424. [CrossRef]
Kind, R. J. , Serjak, P. J. , and Abbott, M. W. , 1996, “ Measurements and Prediction of the Effects of Surface Roughness on Profile Losses and Deviation in a Turbine Cascade,” ASME Paper No. 96-GT-203.
Nikuradse, J. , 1933, “ Laws for Flows in Rough Pipes,” VDI-Forchungsheft 361, Series B, Vol. 4, Report No. NACA TM 1292.
Sohn, J. , 2007, “ Influence of Blade Surface Roughness on Flow Characteristics in a Linear Compressor Cascade,” MS thesis, Seoul National University, Seoul, South Korea.
Tachie, M. F. , Bergstrom, D. J. , and Balachandar, R. , 2000, “ Rough Wall Turbulent Boundary Layers in Shallow Open Channel Flow,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 122(3), pp. 533–541. [CrossRef]
Andreopoulos, J. , and Bradshaw, P. , 1981, “ Measurements of Turbulence Structure in the Boundary Layer on a Rough Surface,” Boundary-Layer Meteorol., 20(2), pp. 201–213. [CrossRef]
Shin, J. H. , and Song, S. J. , 2015, “ Pressure Gradient Effects on Smooth and Rough Surface Turbulent Boundary Layers—Part I: Favorable Pressure Gradient,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 137(1), p. 011203. [CrossRef]
Corke, T. C. , Bar‐Sever, A. , and Morkovin, M. V. , 1986, “ Experiments on Transition Enhancement by Distributed Roughness,” Phys. Fluids, 29(10), pp. 3199–3213. [CrossRef]
Kuester, M. S. , and White, E. B. , 2015, “ Roughness Receptivity and Shielding in a Flat Plate Boundary Layer,” J. Fluid Mech., 777, pp. 430–460. [CrossRef]
Liu, X. , Luo, K. , and Fan, J. , 2017, “ Transient Growth and Receptivity of Steady Disturbances to Irregular Rough Walls,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 139(7), p. 071202. [CrossRef]
Gibbings, J. C. , and Al-Shukri, S. M. , 1997, “ Effect of Sandpaper Roughness and Stream Turbulence on the Laminar Layer and Its Transition,” Aeronaut. J., 101, pp. 17–24.
Jonáš, P. , Hladík, O. , Mazur, O. , and Uruba, V. , 2011, “ By-Pass Transition of Flat Plate Boundary Layers on the Surfaces Near the Limit of Admissible Roughness,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 318(3), p. 032030. [CrossRef]
Pinson, M. W. , and Wang, T. , 2000, “ Effect of Two-Scale Roughness on Boundary Layer Transition Over a Heated Flat Plate—Part 2: Boundary Layer Structure,” ASME J. Turbomach., 122(2), pp. 308–316. [CrossRef]
Goodhand, M. N. , Walton, K. , Blunt, L. , Lung, H. W. , Miller, R. J. , and Marsden, R. , 2016, “ The Limitations of Using ‘Ra’ to Describe Surface Roughness,” ASME J. Turbomach., 138(10), p. 101003. [CrossRef]
Dhawan, S. J. , and Narasimha, R. , 1958, “ Some Properties of Boundary Layer Flow During the Transition From Laminar to Turbulent Motion,” J. Fluid Mech., 3(4), pp. 418–436. [CrossRef]
Volino, R. J. , Schultz, M. P. , and Pratt, C. M. , 2003, “ Conditional Sampling in a Transitional Boundary Layer Under High Freestream Turbulence Conditions,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 125(1), pp. 28–37. [CrossRef]
Mayle, R. E. , 1991, “ The Role of Laminar-Turbulent Transition in Gas Turbine Engines,” ASME J. Turbomach., 113(4), pp. 509–536. [CrossRef]
Schubauer, G. B. , and Skramstad, H. K. , 1948, “ Laminar-Boundary-Layer Oscillations and Transition on a Flat Plate,” National Bureau of Standards, Washington, DC, Annual Report 34, Report No. NACA-909. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19930091976
Abu-Ghannam, B. J. , and Shaw, R. , 1980, “ Natural Transition of Boundary Layers—The Effects of Turbulence, Pressure Gradient, and Flow History,” J. Mech. Eng. Sci., 22(5), pp. 213–228. [CrossRef]
Emmons, H. W. , 1951, “ The Laminar-Turbulent Transition in a Boundary Layer—Part I,” J. Aeronaut. Sci., 18(7), pp. 490–498. [CrossRef]
Nolan, K. P. , and Zaki, T. A. , 2013, “ Conditional Sampling of Transitional Boundary Layers in Pressure Gradients,” J. Fluid Mech., 728, pp. 306–339. [CrossRef]
Wang, T. , Keller, F. J. , and Zhou, D. , 1996, “ Flow and Thermal Structures in a Transitional Boundary Layer,” Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci., 12(3), pp. 352–363. [CrossRef]
Ducros, F. , Comte, P. , and Lesieur, M. , 1996, “ Large-Eddy Simulation of Transition to Turbulence in a Boundary Layer Developing Spatially Over a Flat Plate,” J. Fluid Mech., 326, pp. 1–36. [CrossRef]
Meinders, E. R. , and Hanjalić, K. , 1999, “ Vortex Structure and Heat Transfer in Turbulent Flow Over a Wall-Mounted Matrix of Cubes,” Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow, 20(3), pp. 255–267. [CrossRef]
Keirsbulck, L. , Labraga, L. , Mazouz, A. , and Tournier, C. , 2002, “ Surface Roughness Effects on Turbulent Boundary Layer Structures,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 124(1), pp. 127–135. [CrossRef]
Krogstadt, P. Å. , and Antonia, R. A. , 1999, “ Surface Roughness Effects in Turbulent Boundary Layers,” Exp. Fluids, 27(5), pp. 450–460. [CrossRef]
Volino, R. J. , Schultz, M. P. , and Flack, K. A. , 2007, “ Turbulence Structure in Rough- and Smooth-Wall Boundary Layers,” J. Fluid Mech., 592, pp. 263–293. [CrossRef]
Krogstad, P. Å. , Antonia, R. A. , and Browne, L. W. B. , 1992, “ Comparison Between Rough- and Smooth-Wall Turbulent Boundary Layers,” J. Fluid Mech., 245(1), pp. 599–617. [CrossRef]

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Schematic of the flat-plate test section

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Static pressure coefficient plotted versus normalized flat-plate length

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Transitional mean velocity profiles with similarity profiles for ks = 1.27 μm, ZPG case

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Peak turbulence intermittency distributions for all test surfaces

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Turbulent spot production rate plotted versus freestream turbulence

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Peak turbulence intermittency distributions for test cases normalized by the transition length

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Mean velocity profiles for γ ≈ 0.01 to γ ≈ 0.5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Mean velocity profiles for late stages of transition: (a) γ ≈ 0.72 and (b) γ ≈ 0.96

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Normalized momentum thickness versus scaled transition length for all test cases

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Turbulence intensity profiles for γ ≈ 0.01 to γ ≈ 0.5

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Turbulence intensity profiles for late stages of transition: (a) γ ≈ 0.88 and (b) γ ≈ 0.96

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Contours of PSD (u2) for late-stage transitional boundary layer: (a) ks = 1.27 μm, γ = 0.96 and (b) ks = 373.2 μm, γ = 0.96

Tables

Errata

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In