C140/8 8

The correlation of experimental velocity an d

temperature data for a turbulent natural convectio n
boundary laye r

R CHEESEWRIGHT, BEng, PhD and M H MIRZAI, MSc

Department of Mechanical Engineering, Queen Mary College, University of Londo n

It has been claimed that the wall shear stress is

not a relevant parameter for the correlation o f
temperature and velocity data for turbulen t
natural convection boundary layers . The pape r
reports wall shear stress data of sufficient
accuracy for a check to be made of this claim .
The correlation of the temperature data is shown
to be insensitive to the wall shear stress ove r
the range of Grashof numbers covered but th e
velocity data is correlated by splitting it into a
part dependent on the shear stress and a par t
directly dependent on the temperature field .

1 INTRODUCTION

A heated vertical plate generates the simplest form of natural convectio n

boundary layer and has been used by many investigators in the last twent y
years . In spite of numerous investigations in the turbulent region, only a
small amount of data are available on the velocity distribution . Although
much more data for the corresponding temperature distribution exist, there i s
no universally accepted basis to correlate either the temperature or the velocit y
data . The problems of correlation are not assisted by the fact that many o f
the existing data are not entirely consistent, in that they do not satisfy an
integral ener balance .
Fujii reviewed all the experimental data available up to 1973 an d
pointed out[1] that there were deficiencies in measurement accuracy. He
concluded that more experimental data were needed . George and Capp [2], in
their theoretical work mentioned that they had suffered from a lack of
accurate data, especially velocity data very close to the wall . Hoogendoorn
and Euser [3] showed that although the data from different experiment s
seemed to be consistent, they did not satisfy an integral energy balance an d
they suggested that the source of error lay in the mean velocity data. This
suggestion was confirmed by the work of Cheesewright and Ierokipiotis [4] wh o
used Laser Dopper Anemometry (LDA) to measure the velocity .
In all the experiments to date the experimenter has been present in the
laboratory where the experiments were taking place and because of the very
low velocities which characterise the flow this may have introduced distur -

79
bances. In order to ovecome this problem and to facilitate the acquisition o f
temperature and velocity data over a wide range of temperature differences ,
the flat plate apparatus used by Ierokipiotis [7] was modernised to utilise a
fully automatic traversing mechanism . With the new arrangement the optica l
head of a fibre optic laser Doppler anemometer system and a thermocoupl e
probe could be traversed together across the boundary layer under compute r
control . In contrast to most previous experiments which had used only one o r
two temperature differences, usually of the order of 40 K, the present experi-
ments included measurements at differences of approximately 10 K, 20 K, 30 K ,
50 K and 60 K.
The basis for the correlation of data suggested by George and Capp [2 ]
depends on the assumption that the wall shear stress can be ignored in an y
correlation . This view has been disputed by Cheesewright [8] and up t o
present there has not been any wall shear stress data available, in conjunctio n
with temperature and velocity data, which could be used to check this point .
With this in mind, considerable effort was expended in the presen t
experimental work, in obtaining reliable wall shear stress data.

2 APPARATUS AND INSTRUMENTATIO N

The vertical flat plate is 2.75 m high by 0 .61 m wide . It consists of nin e
electrical heating elements sandwiched between two aluminium plates . A stabi-
lized mains supply is fed to nine variable transformers, each connected to on e
of the heaters . By adjusting the current passing through the variable trans -
formers, the temperature difference between the plate and the ambient can be
kept uniform along the plate to an accuracy of ± 0 .5 K.
A 25 um diameter, butt-joined chromel-alumel thermocouple was used t o
measure the temperature in the natural convection boundary layer . The signal
from this thermocouple was amplified, low-pass filtered with a cut-off frequency
of 50 Hz, and then digitised and stored on a floppy disc of a PDP-11 min i
computer for further processing .
For corresponding velocity measurements, a Dantec e 55X Fibre Opti c
Laser Doppler Anemometer (driven by a 35 mw laser) was used with a
Frequency Shifter and Counter Processor. The signal from the photo-multiplie r
detector was band pass filtered in the range of 2-256 Hz before being passe d
to the counter . In the absence of a direct digital connection between th e
counter and the controlling computer, the analog output from the counter wa s
digitised by the same ADC which was used to convert the analog temperatur e
signal and the data were stored on the same floppy disc .
A 5 seconds burst of seeding (corn oil) was introduced every 20 0
seconds from a position behind the hot plate. This enabled a uniform concen-
tration of corn oil particles to be maintained during the five and half hour s
necessary for the measurement of each profile .

3 RESULTS

The low frequencies which are characteristic of turbulence in natural convectio n

flows necessitated the use of an averaging period of 6 minutes, which with a
digitisation rate of 100 Hz gave 36 000 samples per point .
Each profile comprised 50 points, ofwhich 24 were taken within th e
first 10 mm away from the wall. This concentration of points near the wal l
was necessary to enable the wall temperature to be obtained by extrapolatio n
of the temperature profile and the local heat transfer rate and the wall shea r

80


stress to be obtained from the temperature and velocity gradients respectively .

The distance between points on the profiles was known to an accurac y
of ± 0 .5 mm. This degree of uncertainty was not acceptable and so it wa s
necessary to determine the exact position of the wall from the measure d
profiles . In the case of the temperature profile previous workers [5[, [7] have
shown that profiles of both mean temperature and the intensity of th e
temperature fluctuations are linear over the first 2 mm away from the wal l
and that the latter profile goes to zero at the wall . Thus a least squares fi t
of the fluctuation profile was used to determine the position of the wal l
relative to the thermocouple probe . It is estimated that this was accurate t o
± 0.05 mm.
The determination of the wall position for the velocity profile was mor e
difficult . The measuring volume of the fibre optic LDA probe was 0 .16 mm
diameter by 2.4 mm long, and was situated approximately 55 mm from th e
probe head. The length meant that the axis of the probe could not b e
perpendicular to the wall . Equally, the diameter of the probe head (16 mm) ,
meant that the axis could not be parallel to the wall . Thus it had to b e
inclined at 9° to the wall . The polished surface of the wall caused any part
of the measuring volume which was actually incident on the wall to b e
reflected back into the flow thus giving rise to erroneously large estimates o f
the velocity. All the measured profiles have at lease one point very close to
the wall which is in error in this way . Typical examples of the profiles ar e
shown in Fig. 1.
The velocity profile for that part of the flow which is in both th e
conductive sublayer and the viscous sublayer is known to be given by :
Tw gL(Tw-Tm) 2 + g R Q o
U = Y Y Y3 (1 )
pv 2v 6v «

where Y is the true distance from the wall.

Two slightly different methods of analysing the velocity profile data wer e
used, both based on equation 1 . In the first method the least squares
technique was used to fit data for the first 2.5 mm away from the wall to a n
equation of the form:

U=C o +C x Ym +C 2 Y m +C 3 Yin ( 2)
where Y m is the apparent or measured distance from the wall .
The fit was repeated with the data point closest to the wall being pro-
gressively dropped from the analysis until consistent values of the coefficient s
were obtained . C o was then the difference between the measured and the
true distance from the wall and the wall shear stress could be obtained fro m
dU/dY at Y = O. By trial and error it was found that data out to 5 mm
from the wall could be included in the analysis without significantly alterin g
the estimated wall shear stress .
The incentive to try a slightly different analysis came from the obser-
vation that the fitted coefficients in Eqn . 2 did not agree well with what coul d
be estimated from the quadratic and cubic terms in Eqn . 1, using the values
of Tw and Q o obtained from the temperature profile . The analysis starte d
with the estimation of the difference between the true and the measure d
distance from the wall from a graph of measured velocity against measure d
distance from the wall . The corrected distance from the wall was then used,

81


together with the values of Tw and Q o from the temperature profile t o

construct a graph of:

g BT Tm) g6S Q
U + Y2 v Y 3 against Y (3 )
2v
Fig . 2 shows an example of such a graph and it will be seen that the dat a
form a good straight line . The slope of the straight line gives (dU/dY)Y=0
for the actual velocity profile. Values of the wall shear stress obtained by th e
two methods were quite close but over the whole set of profile measurements
it seemed that the second method gave the more consistent results .
The estimates of the wall shear stress for all the profiles measured, ar e
plotted in non dimensional form against the Grashof Number in Fig. 3 and a
selection of the temperature and velocity profiles are plotted in the manner
suggested by George and Capp [2] in Figs . 4 and 5 . Data obtained by
Chokouhmand [6] from experiments in water is also included in Fig . 4.

4 DISCUSSIO N

It can be seen that the approach of George and Capp [2] gives a reasonabl e
correlation of the temperature data for the region away from the wall but that
it does not correlate the water data in the conductive sublayer very near th e
wall . This failure in the conductive sublayer is not unexpected since we
know that the temperature profile in this region is given by :

lb = C (4 )

and if we accept * that the wall heat transfer data correlates as :

Nux = Grx i/3 F(Pr )

then:

Pr 2/3 F(Pr )
=T
and the profile has the form :

0 = 1 - nT Pr
Y 2/3 F(Pr) = 1 = Y F 1 (Pr) (5)
nT

and if we omit the function of Pr we shall not get correlation between the
data for water and air .
If we replot the data in the form of 0 against j we see from Fig. 6
that we have a reasonable correlation over the whole region . Now it migh t
be thought that Fig. 6 proves that George and Capp [2] were correct in their
claim that the wall shear stress is not a relevant parameter in any correlation .
However we must note that we only have data for a very limited range o f
Grashof number . Just how limited this range is can be seen if we remember
that the Grashof number is analogous to the square of the Reynolds number .
We would not be able to judge the trends in the profiles for a forced flow i f

* The heat transfer data from the present experiments correlate as :

Nux = 0 .11 Grx 0 .3 3

82


we only had data for Reynolds numbers up to 3 times the transition Reynold s
number.
Cheesewright [8] has argued that the neglect of the wall shear stress b y
George and Capp (2 ] is only acceptable if the wall shear stress v Grashof
number relationship is of the form :

3
1 f ( Pr ) (6 )
P g Q (Tw TW)X = GrX/
The data in Fig. 3 do not support Eqn. (6) . There is some scatter but if
a relationship of the form:
Tw
= A Grn
p g s(Tw -T„ )X

is fitted, n is found to be -0.26 which is consistent with the results of very

recent numerical calculations by Henkes [9] who suggests that :
Tw -1/ 4
Gr x
p g R(Tw -T„ )X

The present data are neither sufficiently accurate nor sufficiently extensive t o
check the suggestion by Cheesewright [8] that in the fully turbulent part of th e
near wall region the temperature data should correlate as :

Qo
0 = A o + Al (T In S + AZ S-1/3 (7 )
w TO UT

However, both the present data and work of Henkes [9] indicate tha t
the effect of the wall shear stress should become increasingly important as on e
goes to higher and higher Grashof number . This implies that the correlation s
shown by the data in Figs . 4 and 6 should not be expected to hold at ver y
high Grashof number . There is thus an urgent need for data extending up t o
Grashof numbers of 10 13 and 10 1 ' which are typical of conditions in a
number of nuclear reactor situations .
Fig. 5 shows that the approach of George and Capp [2] does no t
correlate the velocity data to any significant extent . The data show a clea r
dependence on streamwise distance even when the temperature difference acros s
the layer is constant. The implications of this can be seen from the work of
Cheesewright [8] who has shown that the general form of the velocity profil e
in the whole of the near wall region is :
U
=F((,Y+,Y/nT,Pr)
[g 13 (TwT.)«]1/ 3
erimentally we know that is not X dependant, and n T and Pr are by
definition X independent so it follows that the observed X dependence of th e
velocity data must be interpreted in the general form, as a dependence on Y +
and hence on the wall shear stress . This is consistent with the known form

83


of the velocity profile in the viscous/conductive sublayer as used in Eqn . 1 .

The derivation of a form of the velocity profile for the fully turbulen t
part of the wall region, corresponding to that suggested in Eqn . 7 for th e
temperature profile, has proved to be difficult but the work of Cheesewrigh t
[8] suggests that one of the terms should be B O UT Ln Y+ as found in an
ordinary turbulent boundary layer where B O is an unknown constant. Fig . 7
shows a selection of the present data plotted as :

U- 3 .5UTLnY+ Y
against —
1/3
[g R (Tw-To ) «] nT

The correlation is not perfect but it is much better than that in Fig . 5 . Th e
comments made above, about the increasing importance of the wall shear stres s
as one goes to higher and higher Grashof numbers, are equally applicable t o
the velocity correlations and the lack of a solid theoretical basis for th e
particular form of correlation used in Fig . 7 means that we should be carefu l
in extrapolating it to very high Grashof numbers .
The correlations in Figs . 6 and 7 could be used as a basis fo r
'artificial' boundary conditions in finite difference computations of turbulen t
natural convection flows, but for such a procedure to be used in any mediu m
other than air one would need to know the influence of the Prandtl numbe r
on the Nusselt-Grashof relationship and on the dimensionless shear stres s
Grashof relationship. While there is some data on the former there is no
data at all on the latter . It is clear from the data presented here that th e
use of the George and Capp profiles as a basis for 'artificial' boundary
conditions, as has been done in the work of Thompson et al [10], is likely t o
lead to errors both as one goes to media with Prandtl numbers different t o
that for which the profile constants were derived and perhaps mor e
importantly, as one goes to higher Grashof numbers . The use of th e
correlations obtained in this work would clearly be better than the use of th e
George and Capp [2] profiles but it is very clear that more work, particularl y
at high Grashof numbers, is needed before such procedures can be accorded
the same status as the use of 'log law' boundary conditions in the computatio n
of ordinary turbulent boundary layers .

5 CONCLUSIONS
1. For a turbulent natural convection boundary layer on an isothermal ver-
tical plate in air the wall shear stress correlates as:
Tw o .z s
.0 Grx
Pg B(Tw -LO X = 1
2. Over the limited range of Grashof number for which data is availabl e
the temperature profiles correlate as 0 = F(c) .
3. The wall shear stress is expected to be a parameter in the correlation
of the temperature profiles at Grashof numbers above approximately 10 13 .
4. The velocity profiles can only be correlated when the wall shear stress i s
included as a parameter .

6 REFERENCES

1. Fujii, T., Dennetsu-Kogaku no shinten, vol . 3, p .1, Yookendo, 1974.

84


2. George, W.K. and Capp, S .P., 'A theory for natural convecton boundary
layers next to heated vertical surfaces', Int . J . Heat Mass transfer, Vol . 22, pp .
813-826, 1979 .
3. Hoogendoom, C .J . and Euser, H., 'Velocity profiles in turbulent free
convection boundary layers', Int . Heat Transfer Conference, Toronto, Vol . 2 ,
pp . 193-198, 1978.
4. Cheesewright, R . and Ierokipiotis, E .G ., 'Velocity measurements in a
natural convection boundarylayer', Paper NC31, 7th Int . Heat Transfer Conf. ,
Munich, 1982.
5. Cheesewright, R . and Ziai, S ., 'Distributions of temperature and local
heat transfer rate in turbulent natural convection in a large rectangular cavity' ,
Proc. 8th Int. Heat Transfer Conference, San Francisco, USA, Vol . 4, p . 1465 ,
1988 .
6. Chokouhmand, H ., 'Convection naturelle dans 1'eau le long d'une plaqu e
verticale chauffee a densite de flux constante', Division D'Etude et de Develop-
pement des Reacteurs, C.E .N. SACLAY B .P. No . 2, 91 190 . GIF .sur .YVE'FI'E ,
France, 1978.
7. Ierokipiotis, E .G ., 'The study of the development of a turbulent natura l
convection boundary layer using laser doppler anemometry', Ph .D Thesis, Uni-
versity of London, 1983 .
8. Cheesewright, R., Faculty of Engineering, Queen Mary College, University
of London, Research Report (EP5037), 1987 .
9. Henkes, R .A.W .M., Personal communication, Department of Applie d
Physics, University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands, December 1987 .
10. Thompson, C .P ., Wilkes, N.S. and Jones, I .P ., 'Numeical studies o f
boundary driven turbulent flow in a rectangular cavity', International Conferenc e
on Numerical Methods in Thermal Problems, Swansea, July 1985 .

NOMENCLATURE

Grx local Grashof number

g specific gravitational forc e
Nux local Nusselt number
Pr Prandtl number
Q. Q/P
Qw wail het flux
Tw wall temperatur e
To, ambient temperatur e
U local mean velqcity in the X-directio n
(Tw-T.) 1 3
U T shea velocity ] _ ( Tw/p) 1 / 2
XT distance up the plate from the leading edg e
Y distance normal to the plat e
Y+ Y UT/v
cc thermal diffusivity
13 coefficient of thermal expansio n
T. )
ST YTX)
0 T - Tw)/ fI' - T. )
nT George and Capp [2] inner length-scale,
« 2/ 3
for constant wall temperature =
[g R( TwTo)] 1/ 3

85


v kinematic viscosity
p density

80
10
a Gr.= 7 .20 x 10
10
♦ Gr .= 3 .94 x 10
10
e Gr .= 2 .05 x 10
60 -

-1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Y (mm)

Fig . 1 Velocity profiles close to the wal l

86


4
10
A Gr =5 .40x10
Y
10
o Gr = 3 .94 x 10
0 Y 10
▪ 8
?3 -
o Gr=2 .05x10
Y : : C
p
no so I A
0
o o
A 01 o
i i p
2 -
p 1 O O
p p O O O
q 0 O
0 0
° o 0
1 -
A o c 0
p o O
O
O

0 0 6 e e 4
0
0 2 4 6 8 10

Y (mm)

Fig. 2 Linearised velocity profiles close to the wall

3 .0
o AT564 K
2 .5 • AT=50 K
n AT532 K
o AT519 K

on n o o • € o0
N 3 St * s o
4 o

0.5 .. .. .. .... .... ..

0 .0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
10
Gr . 10

Fig. 3 Dimensionless wall shear stress v Grashof number

87


a • Present Or = 2 .05 x 10
• Present Gr = 3 .94 x 10 1 0
.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . ..... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .
• o Chokouhmand Gr = 3 .19 x 1011 22
A Chokouhmand Or = 1 .86 x 1 0
•'
p

• CI.
.. .. ... . .. .. .... ... . .. .. .... ... . ....... . .... .. .... .... .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ...
.
••
.. .. . ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .

. .. .

,• . . .. .
10 100 1000
Yl11T

Fig . 4 Temperature profiles in terms of the George and Capp correlation

25
I0
o Grx 7 .20x1 0
• Gr=3
x
.94x10 10 : .. .. o. :
20 - l0 o
e Gr .= 2 .05x10 n
n

. . . ... . . . . ..

• vote •
n • • •

0
• o
. ..a + .. : ..
10 =

• ro
4 • .
0 11
5= • 0
Dil
• •
R ase
0
.1 10 100 100 0
YIrlT

Fig . 5 Velocity profiles in terms of the George and Capp correlation

88


1 .0

10
o Gr = 5 .40 x 10
1SI
10
0 .8 i A Grx= 3 .94 x 10
10
a Grx= 2 .05 x 10

0.6 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . ... .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .... ....... . .... ....... . ... .... ... . .. .. .. .. ... . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
'2%
o

.... .... .. .. ... . ....... .... . ..... .. .... .... .. .. .... .... . .. .... .... .. .. .... .... .. .. . ... . ... .... . ... . .. .. .. .. ... .

6;... t

s 64

10 100
Y
Nu
X x

Fig . 6 Temperature profiles correlated in terms of the conduction lengt h

scale

10
%A. 4 1 o•eP 0 0 0 Grx= 7 .20 x 10

Or x 3 .94 x 10 11 00
▪ Orx= 2 .05 x 10
E.
.. .. .. .. .. .
II

R.
. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .... .. .. ... . .... ... .. .. . ... .. .. . ... .. .. .. .. . ... . ... .. .. . . ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .... .... ... . .. .. .. .. ... . .. .. .. .. ...
t,
o• •
0 .*

-60
'
10 100 1000

Ylrtr

Fig . 7 Velocity profiles correlated by separating the 'forced' and 'free' part s

89