15 views

Original Title: Control of Turbulence - Lumey

Uploaded by Ssheshan Pugazhendhi

- Design of a Supersonic Nozzle
- cylinder
- course_catalog_ecole_centrale_paris.pdf
- 1988_First International Symposium on Special Topics in Chemical Propulsion_base Bleed
- FM42 - Manual
- Measurements of the Laminar Burning Velocities in Dust-Air Mixtures
- Cylinder
- SWSIM-Enhanced Turbulence Modeling Flow
- Vortex panel method - s
- Biomedical_7-8
- Calculation of Transverse Hydrodynamic Coefficients Using Co
- sylabus.docx
- Fall Velocity in Desander
- Transferencia Cap 06-1-71
- mhtl06-13
- HEAT EXCHANGERS SELECTING TUBE INSERTS FOR SHELL AND TUBE (CEP).pdf
- Full Report
- 123
- FMM Syllabus Revised (2014-15)
- Airfoil in a high amplitude oscillating stream

You are on page 1of 17

A9617981, F49620-92-J-0287, F49620-92-J-0038, N00014-92-J-1547, NSF OCE-90-17882, AIAA Paper 96-0001

Control of turbulence

J. Lumley

Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY

AIAA, Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 34th, Reno, NV, Jan. 15-18, 1996

Applications of active control of turbulent fluid flow are discussed, with their implications for the economy and the

environment. We outline a conceptual basis for control, sketching sensors, algorithm, and actuators. We describe the

physical basis for control of the boundary layer: coherent structures and bursts; the connection between burst

frequency and friction velocity; the change of burst frequency and drag reduction possible with polymers or active

control; and other effects on burst frequency. The state of the flow must be sensed from the surface, and the

information is necessarily incomplete and aliased. Sophisticated techniques may be necessary to interpret the

signals. A control strategy is necessary, and we need a model of the flow as a predictor/interpretor; surface actuators

are also necessary. We present surprising results of Direct Numerical Simulation of an actuator. Before controlling the

fluid, we have tried to control a model; we present results of attempts to control several different models. (Author)

Page 1

AIAA-96-0001

Control of Turbulence

John Lumley*

Sibley School

of

Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering

Cornell University

Ithaca, NY 14853

January 1996

Abstract

A few applications of active control of turbulent fluid flow are

discussed, with their implications for the economy arid the environment. We outline a conceptual basis for control, sketching sensors,

algorithm and actuators. Control requires understanding of turbulent

flows beyond our present capabilities. We describe the physical basis

for control of the boundary layer: coherent structures and bursts; the

connection between burst frequency and friction velocity; the change

of burst frequency and drag reduction possible with polymers or active control; other effects on burst frequency [e.g.- curvature, acceleration / deceleration (pressure gradients), divergence - convergence

(extra rates of strain)]. The state of the flow must be sensed from

*The 1996 Dryden Lecture in Research of the American Institute of Aeronautics and

Astronautics; AIAA Paper No. 96-0001. Supported in part by Contract No. F4962092-J-0287 jointly funded by the U. S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research (Control

and Aerospace Programs), and the U. S. Office of Naval Research, in part by Grant No.

F49620-92-J-0038, funded by the U. S. Air Force Office of Scientific Research (Aerospace

Program), and in part by the Physical Oceanography Programs of the U. S. National

Science Foundation (Contract No. OCE-901 7882) and the U. S. Oflice of Naval Research.

(Grant No. N000H-92-.1-1547).

1

Sophisticated techniques may be necessary to interpret the signals. A

control strategy is necessary, an algorithm, and we need a model of

the flow as a predictor / interpreter. Surface actuators are necessary what do they do to the fluid? We present surprising results of Direct

Numerical Simulation of a type of actuator. Before controlling the

fluid, we have tried to control a model; we present results of attempts

to control several different models.

Introduction

For the last few years, control of turbulent flows has been a very popular

subject. NASA, for example (in the person of Dennis Bushnell) stated that

we would have to improve our lift to drag ratio by a factor of two during

the next two decades in order to remain competitive with Europe and the

Pacific rim, and that this would have to be done by various clever drag reduction and high-lift devices, among them active control. In the hypersonic

transport, for example, it was pointed out that most of the drag occurred

in the engine, the only place where the density was appreciable, and that

this was an ideal opportunity for drag reduction by active control, since the

area was relatively small; in addition, there was difficulty getting the fuel

and oxidant mixed and burned in the time available, and this was a good

application for active control also, to increase mixing rates. More recently,

the engines of the high speed civil transport have proved too noisy for commercial airport regulations, arid active control has been proposed as a means

to increase the mixing, causing the jets to spread more rapidly, and the jet

velocity consequently to drop, reducing the noise output.

Recently, [10], [17], [9] some of these attempts at active control have

been written up in the print media. In this case, specifically, the stories

featured tiny micro-mechanical actuators developed by Chih-Minh Ho and

his co-workers. None of the articles mentioned, however, the necessary understanding of the flow, and the need for a control algorithm, to make this

work. The articles suggested that such control devices would be tried on real

aircraft within two years [43]. In this test application, the use of a neural

net was envisioned; by the use of a neural net, you hope that you don't need

to understand the flow, or have a clearly developed control algorithm - like

biofeedback, it is hoped that the net will learn to do the right thing without

understanding it, to bring down the drag, or whatever else is required. However, experience (Jan Aschenbach - private communication) has indicated

that allowing the net to learn in this way is slow and inefficient, producing

unimpressive results; better results are obtained only when there is a clear

model and algorithm available to train the net.

To justify continued funding, a practical demonstration is absolutely eseritial. However, the time scale of the funding agencies and that of the research

projects is not usually similar, and practical demonstrations are usually demanded long before the project is ready. This risks a negative outcome which

might have been avoided, but which could kill the project.

No sooner had the possibility of active flow control appeared in the popular press than the funding agencies announced that they were cutting back

the funding for active control. There are a number of possible explanations

here: the agencies may have felt that the technology was so close to practical

development that no further research was necessary; they may have felt that,

on the basis of preliminary tests, the expected gains would not justify further

investment, or the aircraft industry may have said that they were no longer

interested in drag reduction, because the price of oil was relatively low, and

that they were more interested in reduced cycle time. I believe all of these

reasons are ill founded.

The technology is certainly far from mature; rather, it is in its infancy.

Preliminary tests have indicated gains in the neighborhood of 5%-10%, which

probably would not justify continued investment. However, theory indicates

possible gains of 50%, and the very preliminary nature of the tests and immaturity of the field suggests that continued investment at this time might

pay off. So far as the future is concerned, [1] indicates that managers have

not for a considerable time undertaken any R&D effort that does not promise

payback within five years. Research like active control of turbulence, however, may not payback in less than 20 years or more [1]. In 20 years, the price

of crude oil is almost certain to be higher - if we want to have technology

ready then, we must start now.

In what follows, we will present the very particular point of view of our

own group on flow control; this paper is riot intended to be in any sense a

comprehensive survey. A number of these have been published in the last

few years [8], [11], [24], [25], [26], [41], and the reader is referred to these for

a survey of the field from various points of view.

Control as a Concept

somewhere downstream, or off axis, depending on the particular flow. The

function of these sensors is to tell us the state of the flow. These sensors might

be V-hot film units, for example, in the case of the boundary layer. Such units

would respond to the streamwise and cross-stream fluctuating wall shear

stress. The sensors might be arranged on one or more lines across the stream,

at different streamwise locations, and of course would have a certain spacing

in the cross-stream direction. We are interested in knowing the velocity field

above the surface in a region, and the location and distribution of the sensors

restricts the information that we can obtain. Since the sensors are on the

surface, they can perceive only a part of the information from the flow above.

In addition, their location on lines, and their discrete distribution opens

the possibility of aliasing of various sorts, in which one kind of information

appears as another kind.

We need help in interpreting the input of the sensors. Here is where a

low-dimensional model would be useful. It could, for example, be used as a

Kalman filter to make the most of the partial information from the sensors.

We must also address the problem of how, when arid where to interfere

with the flow, to have the greatest effect. This is known as the control

algorithm, something that was omitted from [10]. This is probably the most

important aspect of control, and a matter that is far from being resolved in

any flow. In the boundary layer, for example, if we wish to interfere with

what is called the bursting of the coherent structures, what do we want to

do - prevent them from developing, surely, but how? Blow them away from

the wall? Blow them sideways? Add vorticity of opposite sign to them to

weaken them? Just when arid where do we want to do this? How will we

decide in real time?

Finally, we have the question of actuators. Once we have decided what

we want to do, what flow disturbance we wish to introduce, we must have

a device that will produce this disturbance. This might be a flap, perhaps,

or a bump, on the surface under a boundary layer, or a flap on the lip of

a jet orifice, for example. We need to know the flow disturbance that will

be produced by the actuator. These actuators, in the case of the boundary

layer, function in the very viscous, but riot quite viscously dominated region

near the wall, and such flows are difficult to predict. We will see later that

Layer

Many turbulent flows display a combination of organized, or coherent, structures and apparently disorganized, or incoherent, structures. Coherent structures make up over 80% of the energy in the wall region of the turbulent

boundary layer (say for y+ < 40, where y+ yurjv , and UT is the friction

velocity and v the viscosity; the friction velocity is defined as fidU/dy = pu^.,

where the gradient is evaluated at the wall). We want to develop a lowdimensional model of the flow in the vicinity of the wall, resolving just these

coherent structures. These structures are observed to be vortices lying parallel to, and close to, the wall, oriented in the streamwise direction. These

vortices are usually observed as unequal pairs, but sometimes as singletons.

On the up draft side of the vortex, slow-moving fluid is lifted away from the

wall, producing a low-speed streak, while a high-speed streak is produced on

the other side.

The coherent structures are observed to "burst"; that is, the updraft becomes more intense, adjacent vortices move toward each other, the inflection

in the streamwise velocity profile in the updraft intensifies and moves farther

from the wall, a secondary instability grows on this inflection, producing a

burst of Reynolds stress, the vortices are weakened as a result, they move

apart, and a "sweep" of high speed fluid comes down from the outer part

of the layer. This process is responsible for the production of most of the

turbulent kinetic energy in the layer, and it is this process that we want to

interfere with.

In the past decade our group at Cornell has developed a new approach

to turbulent flows([2], [47], [3], [33], [7]). We have applied our approach

primarily to the flat-plate boundary layer. The approach has become quite

popular, being picked up by many research groups (c.f. [5], [16], [29], [30],

[27], [31], [28], [32], [36], [37], [38], [42]), [46], [23], [22]). This is the approach

that we will apply to tell us how, when and where to interfere in the boundary

layer.

In the flat-plate boundary layer, we begin from the idea that the near-

should thus be possible to construct a low-dimensional model of the wall

region resolving only these coherent structures, and parameterizing the less

energetic, less well-organized, smaller-scale turbulence. Such a model can be

used for many purposes, if only large-scale information is needed. The model

involves the following steps:

First we need a good set of basis functions. We use the Empirical Eigenfunctions of the Proper Orthogonal Decomposition, or the KarhunenLoeve decomposition ([3]), because these are optimal from the viewpoint of convergence. In the wall region, one eigenfunction is sufficient

to capture 80% of the fluctuating energy. These eigerifunctions arc

obtained either from experiment or from DNS.

By Galerkin projection, we obtain a set of ordinary differential equations for the coefficients in the decomposition ([34]). The decomposition is truncated, and the modes that are not represented explicitly

are parameterized by a gradient transport model. Some representation of these unresolved modes is necessary, to provide a sink for the

turbulent energy; however, we believe that the precise nature of the

dissipation mechanism does not affect the structure of the large scales.

A unique feature of our models is the utilization of separation of scales

between the coherent structures and the mean. This results in a cubic

term which globally stabilizes the system and allows a very compact

representation.

Models of the near-wall region of the turbulent boundary layer have

been constructed containing from four to 64 degrees of freedom ([45]);

ten degrees of freedom provides a model of the wall region that is satisfactory in many respects, although even the four-dimensional model

The low-dimensional models are explored with various simulation programs constructed for this purpose ([47]), and analyzed using the techniques of dynamical systems theory.

Note that the mean time between bursts (in the laboratory or the

model) is closely related to the drag; in fact, Tv%./v is approximately

velocity and v is the kinematic viscosity), so that the drag coefficient

is inversely proportional to the inter-burst time.The ten dimensional

model displays the following properties:

1. The model displays an intermittent phenomenon with an ejection

phase and a sweep phase that strongly resembles the bursting phenomenon observed in the boundary layer. The probability distribution of inter-burst times has the observed shape ([48], [49], [50],

[35]). However, the time scales both for bursts and interburst

durations are unrealistically long, a fact that was not appreciated until recently, due to the inadvertent omission of a factor of

[ZqZ/a]1/2 from the equation in Appendix A of [3]. We believe that

this is due to the model's inclusion of only a single coherent structure, when in fact a succession of quasi-independent structures are

being swept past the sensor. We return to this below.

2. The low-dimensional model makes it possible to understand the

dynamics of the bursting process: the instability leading to the

burst, the burst itself and the reformation of streamwise vortices

are determined by wall-region dynamics, and hence will scale with

wall-region parameters; the time of occurrence of a burst, however, is triggered by the pressure signal from the outer part of

the boundary layer ([34]). Thus, the interburst time distribution

should scale jointly with both inner and outer variables.

3. In the presence of favorable and unfavorable pressure gradients,

the mean time between bursts (and hence, the inverse of the drag

coefficient) increases and decreases in qualitative accordance with

observation ([47]). That is, in a favorable pressure gradient, the

mean time between bursts increases, the drag coefficient drops,

and the boundary layer grows more slowly, in both nature and

the model, and vice versa in the case of an unfavorable pressure

gradient.

the streamline curvature has the effect of intensifying or suppressing the coherent structures, making them grow faster or slower,

and come to bursting more or less frequently, according to whether

5. In turbulent drag reduction by polymer additives, the structure

of the wall region remains approximately the same, but increases

in scale. It has been speculated that this is due to an increased

lossiness in the turbulent part of the flow, due to the extensional

viscosity of the polymer ([39]). When the ten-dimensional model

is used to describe a flow with a stretched wall region, mean drag

is reduced, and increased lossiness in the turbulence is required to

maintain the system, consistent with the speculative explanation

([4])6. The low-dimensional model has been used to explore the possibility of active drag reduction. Active drag reduction corresponds

to burst-suppression, that is, to keeping the system from burst-

(and consequently reducing the drag) ([20], [21], [19]). It has

been shown using the model that active drag reduction is formally

to suppress the bursting ([4]). Consequently, active drag reduction

can be expected to produce reductions in drag (50%-80%) similar

to those produced by polymers.

Models of this general type can be used whenever it is desired to simulate the large scales of a boundary layer in response to various effects.

We have just seen how such a model can be used to investigate one

possible drag-reduction technique. It can also be used ([34]):

a boundary layer, either to predict panel vibration or sonar selfnoise;

2. To simulate index of refraction fluctuations occurring in the surface mixed layer of the planetary boundary layer, giving rise to

multi-path interference in digital communication links.

The applications are limited only by the imagination. The point here is, that

through the model, we have established a relation between the time between

bursts (and hence the drag or momentum mixing) and various other physical

forth.

Careful examination of the low-dimensional model using the tools of dynamical systems theory indicates that there is a circle of fixed points in phase

space, each fixed point corresponding to quiescent streamwise rolls, the coherent structures; each fixed point has an unstable direction, and if the system

trajectory is not quite on the fixed point, it will gradually spiral away from

it; when it is far enough away, it will jump to a diametrically opposed fixed

point, corresponding to quiescent streamwise rolls displaced sideways from

the first ones. The velocity field corresponding to this process matches well

(in a qualitative way) the bursting process; during the jump there is an intensified updraft, followed by a weakening and separation of the rolls, and a

downdraft. In the ten-dimensional model the updraft is not followed by a secondary instability, due to the truncation of the model. The 64-dimensional

model is more realistic, however. The pressure signal from the outer part

of the boundary layer is enough of a disturbance to keep the system a little

away from the fixed point, so that jumps to a diametrically opposed fixed

point occur at irregular intervals.

The time between these jumps is the only unrealistic thing about the

model - it is much longer than the observations. In the real boundary layer,

however, we are not always looking at the same coherent structure - different

coherent structures are swept past our observation point, and if we include

this factor, it restores the correct interburst time [44], [40].

Knowing how the system behaves in phase space, how can we interfere

with the flow in such a way as to temporarily keep the system from jumping,

to increase the mean time between jumps, since this will ultimately reduce

the drag? We have devised a scheme to delay the jump [20], [21], [19], [18].

The scheme involves an unexpected type of interaction: a transverse velocity

field, such as might be produced by a vortex singleton or pair adjacent to the

coherent structure. The effect of this transverse velocity field is to cause the

system point in phase space to rotate around the fixed point. We use this

rotation to direct the system point back to the fixed point when it tries to

escape; if the system point tries to go around the fixed point to the right, a

rotation is induced that brings it to the left, and so forth. (This geometric interpretation corresponds to the two-dimensional case; the multi-dimensional

average increase of the bursting period (corresponding to a decrease of the

drag) of the order of 50% in the best case.

We have controlled other sorts of models, in order to get a feel for the

process. For example, we have tried successfully two sorts of control of the

Kuramoto-Sivashinsky equation (a one-dimensional equation that has some

features in common with the Navier Stokes equation) [6].

Of course, this is control of models, not control of the real flow. We

have a successful Direct Numerical Simulation of this flow [13], [15], [14],

[12], with a moving boundary, and with vortices introduced by body forces.

We are implementing various control schemes in this flow, raising a burnp

under the high-speed streak, for example, or placing a vortex pair producing

an updraft just over the high speed streak. The vortex pair simulates the

velocity field produced by a sharp-edged flap. These attempts are not in any

sense optimized, nor are they particularly coordinated with our understanding of what is happening in phase space; nevertheless, we have achieved drag

reductions of the order of 20% in the vicinity of the applied control. Even

more interesting is the fact that the drag on the opposite wall falls by 10%

after a short lag. This presumably reflects the reduced turbulence production

due to the reduced bursting. Raising a bump under the high-speed streak

also reduces the drag locally, by both lifting the high speed fluid away from

the wall, and deflecting it into the low-speed streaks, increasing their speed.

Unfortunately, the effect is somewhat reversed when the burrip is lowered.

Actuators

Ho and co-workers [9], [10], [17], and Gaussian bumps. We imagined that a

Gaussian bump would produce a necklace vortex similar to that produced

around a bridge pier or telephone pole. Our simulation of this flow, however,

showed something completely different. We found that, as the flow splits

to pass around the bump, it generates a strong vortex pair with an updraft

between the vortices. Behind the bump, as the flow comes around to rejoin

itself, it generates another strong vortex pair of opposite sign, underneath

10

the first pair. This stack of two pairs is topped by the necklace vortex,

which is the weakest of the three, and is of the same sign as the lowest pair.

Hence, trailing downstream we have a stack of three pairs of alternating sign.

This complicated flow is not particularly useful from a control point of view.

As noted above, we have nevertheless managed to exert some control by

pushing the high-speed streak away from the wall, but for more complex and

controllable interactions, a simpler actuator velocity field would be desirable.

The field of a simple vortex pair, for example, will produce an up- or downdraft, or a cross-wind for adjacent structures. We suppose that a sharpedged flap will produce such a velocity field. It is not possible to resolve the

geometry of such a flap of small size in a DNS of a channel flow, so we have

been using body forces to induce a vortex pair. A DNS could be done of the

flow around such a flap in isolation, at large scale, but has not been done.

Acknowledgments

This manuscript describes work carried out over a ten year period and necessarily involving many past and present students and colleagues. I thank

them all for their contributions, but particularly Phil Holmes, Gal Berkooz

and Sid Leibovich.

References

[1] Anon. R&D scoreboard:1978. Business Week, page 52, July 2 1979.

Fully Developed Turbulent Wall Layer. PhD thesis, Cornell University.,

1987.

[3] N. Aubry, P. Holmes, J. L. Lumley, and E. Stone. The dynamics of

coherent structures in the wall region of a turbulent boundary layer.

Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 192:115-173, 1988.

[4] N. Aubry, J. L. Lumley, and P. Holmes. The effect of modeled drag

reduction in the wall region. Theoret. Coraput. Fluid Dynamics, 1:229248, 1990.

11

[5] K. S. Ball, L. Sirovich, and L. R. Keefe. Dynamical eigenfunction decomposition of turbulent channel flow. Int. Jour, for Num. Meth. in

Fluids, 12:585-604, 1991.

[6] G. Berkooz. Controlling models of the turbulent wall layer by boundary

[7] G. Berkooz, P. Holmes, and J. L. Lumley. The proper orthogonal decomposition in the analysis of turbulent flows. Annual Review of Fluid

Mechanics, 25:539-575, 1993.

J., 1989. Paper No. 89-1009.

[9] Stuart F. Brown. Smart wings. Popular Science, page 59, March 1995.

[10] Malcolm W. Browne. Micro-machines help solve intractable problem of

turbulence. The New York Times, page B13, January 3 1995.

Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 21:1-20, 1989.

[12] H. A. Carlson. Direct numerical simulation of laminar and turbulent

flow in a channel with complex, time-dependent wall geometries. PhD

thesis, Cornell University, 1995.

[13] H. A. Carlson, G. Berkooz, and J. L. Lumley. Direct numerical simulation of flow in a channel with complex, time-dependent wall geometries:

a pseudospectral method. Journal of Computational Physics, 1996. In

press.

[14] H. A. Carlson and J. L. Lumley. Active control in the turbulent bound-

submitted.

[15] H. A. Carlson and J. L. Lumley. Flow over an emerging obstacle. AIAA

J, 1996. Submitted.

[16] D. H. Chambers, R. J. Adrian, P. Moin, D.S. Stewart, and H. J. Sung.

Karhunen-Loeve expansion of burgers model of turbulence. Phys. Fluids,

31:2573-257?, 1988.

12

[17] Jeff Cole. Miniscule flaps face big job on jets' wings. The Wall Street

Journal, page Bl, November 25 1994.

[18] B. D. Coller. Suppression of heterodinic bursts in boundary layer models.

PhD thesis, Cornell University, 1995.

[19] B. D. Coller, P. Holmes, and J. L. Lumley. Control of bursting in boundary layer models. Appl. Mech Rev., 47 (6), part 2:S139-S143, 1994.

Mechanics USA 1994, ed. A. S. Kobayashi.

[20] B. D. Coller, P. Holmes, and J. L. Lumley. Controlling noisy heteroclinic

cycles. Physica D, 72:135-160, 1994.

[21] B. D. Coller, P. Holmes, and J. L. Lumley. Interaction of adjacent bursts

[22] A. E. Deane, I. G. Keverkidis, G. E. Karniadakis, and S. A. Orszag. Lowdimensional models for complex flows: Application to grooved channels

and circular cyliders. Physics of Fluids A, 3(10):2337-2354, 1991.

[23] A. E. Deane and L. Sirovich. A computational study of Raleigh-Benard

222:231-250, 1991.

[24] H. E. Fiedler and H. H. Fernholz. On management and control of turbulent shear flows. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 27:305, 1990.

[25] M. Gad-el Hak. Flow control. Applied Mechanics Reviews, 42(10), 1989.

[26] M. Gad-el Hak. Interactive control of turbulent boundary layers: a

futuristic overview. AIAA J., 32(9):1753, 1994.

axisymmetric turbulent jet mixing layer. In Turbulent shear flows 5.

Springer-Verlag, 1987.

coherent structures in the axisymmetric jet mixing layer. In T. Gatski et.

Newport News, VA Nov. 1990. Springer, 1990.

13

axisymmetric jet mixing layer including azimuthal dependence. In

G. Comte-Bellot and J. Mathieu, editors, Advances in turbulence.

Springer-Verlag, 1987.

[30] M. N. Glauser and W. K. George. An orthogonal decomposition of

the axisymmetric jet mixing layer utilizing cross-wire velocity measurements. In 6th symposium turbulent shear flows, 1987.

[31] M. N. Glauser, X. Zheng, and C. R. Doering. The dynamics of organized

structures in the axisymmetric jet mixing layer. In M. Lesieur and

0. Metais, editors, Turbulence and coherent structures. Kluwer, 1989.

extended proper orthogonal decomposition and its application to a time

periodically forced plane mixing layer. Physics of Fluids A, 1:1363-73,

1989.

[33] P. J. Holmes. Can dynamical systems approach turbulence? In J.L.

Lumley, editor, Whither turbulence? Turbulence at the Crossroads,

pages 195-249, New York, 1990. Springer.

Structures, Dynamical Systems and Symmetry. Cambridge University

Press, 1996.

[35] P. J. Holmes and E. Stone. Heteroclinic cycles, exponential tails and

intermittency in turbulence production. In T. B. Gatski, S. Sarkar, and

C. G. Speziale, editors, Studies in Turbulence, pages 179-189. SpringerVerlag, 1992.

[36] M. Kirby, J. Boris, and L. Sirovich. An eigenfunction analysis of axisymmetric jet flow. Journal of computational physics, 90 no. 1:98-122,

1990.

[37] M. Kirby, J. Boris, and L. Sirovich. A proper orthogonal decomposition of a simulated supersonic shear layer. International journal for

numerical methods in fluids, 10:411-428, 1990.

14

of orthogonal decomposition of the outer layer of turbulent wall flow.

Technical Report TAM 748, UILU-ENG-94-6004, University of Illinois,

Department of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, 1994.

[39] J. L. Lumley and I. Kubo. Turbulent drag reduction by polymer additives: a survey. In B. Gampert, editor, The Influence of Polymer Additives on Velocity and Temperature Fields, pages 3-24. Springer-Verlag,

1985.

[40] J. L. Lumley and B. Podvin. Dynamical systems theory and extra rates

of strain in turbulent flows. Journal of Experimental and Thermal Fluid

Science, 1996. Peter Bradshaw Symposium; in press.

[41] P Moin and T. Bewley.

In A. S.

Kobayashi, editor, Mechanics USA 1994, volume 47(6)2 of Applied Mechanics Reviews, pages S3-S13, 1994. ASME Reprint No. AMR146.

[42] P. Moin and R. D. Moser. Characteristic-eddy decomposition of turbulence in a channel. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 200:471-509, 1989.

[43] H. Park and L. Sirovich. Turbulent thermal convection in a finite domain, part ii. numerical results. Physics of Fluids A, 2 (9): 1659-1668,

1990.

eulerian view of the bursting period. The Physics of Fluids A, 1996. In

preparation.

[45] S. Sanghi and N. Aubry. Mode interaction models for near-wall turbulence. J. Fluid Mech., 247:455-488, 1993.

[46] L. Sirovich and A. E. Deane. A computational study of Raleigh-Benard

convection part II. Dimension considerations. Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 222:251-265,1991.

[47] E. Stone. A Study of Low Dimensional Models for the Wall Region of

a Turbulent Layer. PhD thesis, Cornell University., 1989.

15

a turbulent boundary layer. Physica D, 37:20-32, 1989.

SI AM J. on Appl. Math., 50 no. 3:726-743, 1990.

[50] E. Stone and P. J. Holmes. Unstable fixed points, heteroclinic cycles

and exponential tails in turbulence production. Phys. Lett. /4, 155:2942, 1991.

16

- Design of a Supersonic NozzleUploaded byPandel
- cylinderUploaded bytensian
- course_catalog_ecole_centrale_paris.pdfUploaded byOsvaldo Macias
- 1988_First International Symposium on Special Topics in Chemical Propulsion_base BleedUploaded byAnonymous Izo0nlkTD5
- FM42 - ManualUploaded byAmy Farhana
- Measurements of the Laminar Burning Velocities in Dust-Air MixturesUploaded byrafael1978
- CylinderUploaded byNivesh Agarwal
- SWSIM-Enhanced Turbulence Modeling FlowUploaded byr3155
- Vortex panel method - sUploaded bySattar Al-Jabair
- Biomedical_7-8Uploaded byMuthulingam Ster
- Calculation of Transverse Hydrodynamic Coefficients Using CoUploaded byMahesh J Rao
- sylabus.docxUploaded byArjun Cp
- Fall Velocity in DesanderUploaded byPujan Neupane
- Transferencia Cap 06-1-71Uploaded byAdolfo Moscoso
- mhtl06-13Uploaded byМария Балуева
- HEAT EXCHANGERS SELECTING TUBE INSERTS FOR SHELL AND TUBE (CEP).pdfUploaded byRicardo Bec
- Full ReportUploaded byTharan Brapakaran
- 123Uploaded byapi-19772009
- FMM Syllabus Revised (2014-15)Uploaded byavcschaudhari
- Airfoil in a high amplitude oscillating streamUploaded byJoao
- m.e AeronauticalUploaded byWinapon
- Yu Et Al-2018-Irrigation and DrainageUploaded byAntonioPiresdeCamargo
- Is AuthorUploaded bysandra.spaceexplorer7062
- 1-s2.0-0017931084901650-mainUploaded byAna Paula
- NASA-aiaa-2004-1236Uploaded byazhar_j
- Turbulence 1Uploaded byyoussef_pc
- faeth1996Uploaded byaniketkulkarni1509
- Rientra Duct FlowAirS2012slidesUploaded byo_mars_2010
- ME2204 Question BankUploaded byKarthik Subramani
- Journal of Fluid Mechanics Digital Archive Volume 4 issue 1958 [doi 10.1017_S0022112058000318] R. B. Payne -- Calculations of unsteady viscous flow past a circular cylinder.pdfUploaded bySrinivas Jangili

- Material ScienceUploaded byNikhil Batham
- Lect7_axialTurbines_HT15.pptx.pdfUploaded bySsheshan Pugazhendhi
- LN_TME240.pdfUploaded bySsheshan Pugazhendhi
- Development of an Unsteady Diffusion Solver using Finite Volume Methodology.pdfUploaded bySsheshan Pugazhendhi
- Wind and BeyondUploaded bySuryaKaundinyaOruganti
- AA283 Aircraft and Rocket Propulsion Table of Contents BJ CantwellUploaded bySsheshan Pugazhendhi
- Enthalpy of Formation ChartUploaded bySsheshan Pugazhendhi
- SteamTables_2Uploaded byRay Richalmy
- Assignment 1Uploaded bySsheshan Pugazhendhi
- 2015-Dynamic Simulation and Experimental Validation of AnOrganic Rankine Cycle ModelUploaded bySsheshan Pugazhendhi
- GE Digital Twin Overview and Tutorial -- RRI v3.pdfUploaded bySsheshan Pugazhendhi
- sl_gsUploaded byAlex Mandujano
- Using a Pressure Controlled Vortex Design Method to Control Secondary Flow Losses in a Turbine StageUploaded bySsheshan Pugazhendhi
- Gas Dynamics - Assignemt SolutionsUploaded bySsheshan Pugazhendhi
- Gas Dynamics Assignment-1Uploaded bySsheshan Pugazhendhi
- MSShortlist_May2018 (1)Uploaded bySsheshan Pugazhendhi
- AdvHeatMass_L_16.pdfUploaded bySsheshan Pugazhendhi
- 1-s2.0-S0142727X17311773-mainUploaded bySsheshan Pugazhendhi
- ENG_2013052316495532Uploaded bySsheshan Pugazhendhi
- Development of a Gas Turbine With a 20 Mm Rotor ReUploaded bySsheshan Pugazhendhi
- SyllabusUploaded byGOKUL PRASAD
- Gao DissertationUploaded bySsheshan Pugazhendhi
- Ae0002 Vehicle DynamicsUploaded bySsheshan Pugazhendhi
- Rib roughened surfacesUploaded bySsheshan Pugazhendhi
- Notes on EngmatUploaded bySsheshan Pugazhendhi
- Strength of Materials - KhurmiUploaded bySsheshan Pugazhendhi
- TurbulenceWorkshopNotes RNUploaded bySsheshan Pugazhendhi
- LN_TME240Uploaded bySsheshan Pugazhendhi
- 10.1.1.451.5038Uploaded bySsheshan Pugazhendhi
- MatlabUploaded byDINESHKUMARMCE

- Dynamics simulation for offshore topsideUploaded byDuy Hai
- A e 04602212216Uploaded byAnonymous 7VPPkWS8O
- HW paperUploaded byAli Shah
- Reciprocating Pumps NPSH ConsiderationsUploaded byVILLANUEVA_DANIEL2064
- Deaerator DiscussionUploaded byaliscribd46
- Callidus Jade Burner BrochureUploaded byईन्द्रनील राय
- Strategies for Gas Treatment With AdsorbentsUploaded byamit
- C-27-2008 Thrust Block DesignUploaded byeagle411
- Heat Transfer in Industrial PolymerizationsUploaded byChetal Bhole
- PE 06 Seepage FlownetsUploaded byIshmam Shahid
- HPB datos tecnicosUploaded byRenzzo B Namuche
- questão 9Uploaded byalanis_b
- Control ValvesUploaded bykaveh-bahiraee
- CRE Notes 16 More ReactorsUploaded bykhan
- Reduce Alkylate Costs With Solid-Acid Catalysts _ Hydrocarbon Processing _ October 2007Uploaded byjulior87
- Cement RetainerUploaded byahmed
- Duct Distribution.pdfUploaded byKarthikeyan Sankarrajan
- 00 ITP for UG Piping, Rev.3.docUploaded bynavinsv
- Radiant Floor Cooling Systems[1]Uploaded bynikipsh
- Heat Exchanger Group 17Uploaded byja ma
- BernoulliUploaded byOA Aoo
- Marsh FunnelUploaded byEnrique Tiscornia
- Basic Refrigeration.pptsUploaded byVivek Rathod
- CHE3175 - Sustainability NotesUploaded byMatthew Leach
- Mustang Series M115-43 or M6115-43 (Globe), M1115-43 or M61115-43 (Angle) Installation InstructionsUploaded byWatts
- Chemical Process DiagramsUploaded byHong Li
- Flowmeter Measurement _Experimental Manual.pdfUploaded byJames Edwards
- Ambsflying Como Vuelan Los AvionesUploaded byAdriana Vieras
- Rougnhess efect heat exchangerUploaded byrelojuca
- NGPSA MedicionesUploaded byDorothy Rojas