AIAA-2002-2861

The Generation of High Reynolds

Number Homogeneous Turbulence

Jon Vegard Larssen and William J. Devenport

Department of Aerospace and Ocean Engineering,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg VA 24061

32nd AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and

Exhibit
24-26 June 2002
St. Louis, Missouri
For permission to copy or republish, contact the copyright owner named on the first page.
For AIAA-held copyright, write to AIAA Permissions Department,
1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Suite 500, Reston, VA, 20191-4344
 AIAA-2002-2861

THE GENERATION OF HIGH REYNOLDS NUMBER HOMOGENEOUS TURBULENCE

Jon Vegard Larssen† and William J. Devenport*

Aerospace and Ocean Engineering Department

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
Blacksburg, VA 24061

ABSTRACT λ Taylor Microscale (m)

An active turbulence generating grid, based on
the rotating-vane design of Makita (1991) has been
developed for the Virginia Tech Stability Wind Tunnel.
At 2.13-m square, the grid is the largest of this type ever
developed. To improve the isotropy of the turbulence
generated, the grid was placed in the wind tunnel
contraction. Measurements made 37.3 mesh sizes
downstream of the grid show a closely uniform mean
flow and homogeneous isotropic turbulence to within
one integral scale from the wall. By varying the flow
speed and parameters controlling the random motion of
the vanes (rotation rate, time between direction reversals
and the limits of the random variations in these
parameters) a wide variety of turbulence characteristics
were produced, with Taylor Reynolds numbers from
108 to 1250 and integral scales from 6.8 to almost
60cm. The extreme cases represent some of the highest
Reynolds number and largest scale homogeneous
turbulent flows ever generated in a wind tunnel. The
dependence of turbulence quantities upon grid and flow
parameters is investigated.
LIST OF SYMBOLS
E11 One-dimensional spectral energy density
k Turbulent Kinetic Energy
L Characteristic Macroscale
l Integral Length Scale (m)
Reλ Taylor Reynolds Number
T Cruise time in vane maneuver, page 3 (s)
t Max. deviation in cruise time (s)
u Local rms velocity fluctuation in x direction
Uref Reference Streamwise Mean Velocity
U Local Streamwise Mean Velocity
v Local rms velocity fluctuation in y direction
w Local rms velocity fluctuation in z direction
x Streamwise coordinate (origin in grid plane)
y Transverse coordinate (positive upwards)
z Transverse coordinate (oriented to complete a
right-handed system)
α Grid acceleration rate (rev/s2)
ε Dissipation rate (m2/s3)
†Graduate student, student member AIAA
*Professor, senior member AIAA
Copyright © 2002 by J. Larssen and W. Devenport.
Published by American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Inc. with permission.
κ Wavenumber (m-1)
η Kolmogorov scale (m)
ν Kinematic Viscosity (m2/s)
Ω Average rotation rate (rev/s)
ω Max deviation of rotation rate (rev/s)
INTRODUCTION
This paper describes the design and
development of an active grid system to generate large-
scale high-Reynolds number homogeneous turbulence,
and the study of that turbulence as a function of grid and
flow parameters. The present design is based upon the
rotating vane grid of Makita (1991), which was
developed as a means for generating large scale
turbulence in small wind tunnels. Similar grids have
since been constructed by Mydlarski and Warhaft
(1996, 1998) and Kang et al. (2002).
Makita’s original grid design consists of a
rectangular array of diamond-shaped vanes attached to 8
horizontal and 8 vertical rows of rotating bars. The
rotation of each bar is controlled using a separate
stepper motor. The stepper motors operate
independently and change direction randomly. Makita
(1991) and Mydlarski and Warhaft (1996, 1998) built
active grids using this design for 3 fairly small wind
tunnels with square cross sections 0.46, 0.71, and 0.91-
m on edge. Kang et al. (2002) built their grid for a
rectangular section tunnel 0.91×1.22m.
By varying the flow speed and grid operation
these investigators were able to generate a number of
large-scale turbulent flows, summarized in table 1.
Mydlarski and Warhaft found the turbulence generated
in this way to be closely homogeneous, to decay in the
same manner as conventional grid turbulence, and to
have spectral and statistical properties closely consistent
with the fundamental expectations of homogeneous
turbulence theory. They also found that, despite the
small size of the wind tunnels, the turbulence had very
large integral scales, quite high intensity and thus big
Taylor Reynolds numbers. Indeed they were able to
generate turbulence with integral scales of over 40cm
and Taylor Reynolds numbers of over 730, in a closely
homogeneous field. Kang et al. (2002) generated
turbulence of similar scale and Reynolds number (750)
using their grid. These are some of the highest Reynolds
number homogeneous turbulent flows ever generated in
wind tunnels. Mydlarski and Warhaft (1998) were thus

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

1
able to examine some of the high Reynolds number
asymptotic behavior of the turbulence. Kang et al.
studied the high Reynolds-number performance of large
eddy simulations.
Not all of the properties of the turbulence
produced by this type of grid are attractive for the
present study. Makita (1991) and Mydlarski and
Warhaft (1996, 1998) and Kang et al. (2002) all report
that the turbulence is anisotropic with streamwise
turbulence intensities being about 20% greater than
cross-stream intensities. Kang et al. (2002) found this
anisotropy to occur primarily at scales of the order of
the test section size, and found the turbulence to be
isotropic in the inertial subrange, and at higher
wavenumbers.
In the present study an active grid has been
developed for the Virginia Tech Stability wind tunnel.
This facility is significantly larger than those used in
previous studies, with a square test section 1.8m on
edge. The larger test section provides greater room for
homogeneous flow and thus, at least in principle, larger
turbulent scales. The active grid was sited in the
contraction to reduce the turbulence anisotropy.
Measurements were made at a range of streamwise
positions and conditions in an attempt to determine and
document the effects of the important parameters
governing the turbulence.
APPARATUS AND INSTRUMENTATION
Stability Wind Tunnel
The Virginia Tech Stability Wind Tunnel
(figure 1) is a closed-loop wind tunnel with an air-
exchange tower which allows for temperature
stabilization. The 24' long constant 6' by 6' test section
is configured with removable steel panels on three sides
while the side facing the control room features Plexiglas
panels. The fan, measuring 14' in diameter, consists of 8
custom made constant pitch blades, and is powered by a
600 hp Westinghouse Model No. 28767 motor generator
which rotates at a maximum speed of 900 rpm.
Upstream of the contraction there are seven
stainless steel anti-turbulence grids to improve the flow
quality in the test section. Turbulence intensity levels
for the empty tunnel have been measured by Choi and
Simpson (1987) to be extremely low: less than 0.05%
for flow speeds up to 38.1 m/s. It should be noted,
however, that since this study took place the original fan
blades have been replaced, which should result in
further improvement of the flow quality.
The top speed of this facility is some 80 m/s,
however, with the significant blockage introduced by
the Active Turbulence Grid, the flow speed never
exceeded 20 m/s. The nominal testing speeds included
8, 12, 16, and, for a few conditions, 20 m/s.
Existing wind tunnel instrumentation was used
to monitor the reference flow parameters. This included
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
2
a Validyne DB-99 Digital Barometer (resolution:
0.01”Hg), an Omega Thermistor type 44004 (accuracy:
±0.2°C), and a Pitot-Static Tube connected to a Setra
239 Pressure Transducer (accuracy: ±0.14%).
The Active Turbulence Grid
The basic concept design for the Active
Turbulence Grid (ATG) is shown in figure 2. Based on
the results of Makita (1991) and Mydlarski & Warhaft
(1996, 1998) a configuration consisting of 10 horizontal
and 10 vertical vanes was chosen in order to attempt to
keep the turbulence intensities and integral lengthscales
from becoming too large, and at the same time retain the
homogeneity of the flow. A 10 by 10 rod configuration
yielded 180 (20x9) full agitator vanes and 40 (20x2)
rotating half vanes which were placed at the end of each
rod so as to simulate an infinitely extending grid, when
accounting for images in the test section wall.
The heart of the ATG is the stepper motors
which are mounted outside the Stability tunnel
underneath a weather cover. Aluminum brackets which
can hold ten motors were fitted to the roof and the
starboard outside wall of the tunnel. Aluminum
couplings which fit onto the motor shafts protrude into
the tunnel section and allow for mounting of the grid.
On the non-motor side of the test section (floor and port
side) there are two ½” thick brackets with 10 ball
bearings mounted into the wall to accommodate the end
bearings which slide and mount into the rods. In order
to align the grid-mounting hardware both inside and
outside the tunnel a RoboSquare 3-coordinate laser level
was used to ensure full grid alignment.
A bi-planar design was adopted in which all
the vertical rods were placed in the same streamwise
plane with the horizontal placed 2.5" upstream of the
vertical rods. This configuration reduces the drag on the
grid, yet eliminates the danger of the agitator vanes ever
hitting each other even in the event of a malfunctioning
coupling/bearing. Also, to keep the moment of inertia
symmetric for each rod, all agitator vanes were
alternately positioned on opposite sides of the rod. To
reduce vibration and friction during operation some 20
vinyl couplings with lubricated sleeve bearings were
placed in strategic positions throughout the grid joining
the horizontal and vertical rods.
Based on initial tests and calculations it was
decided to build the grid using thin-walled aluminum
rods with Luan plywood vanes to reduce the inertial
load. To further reduce the load, twelve ¾" holes were
drilled in each of the 180 full vanes. All holes were then
covered with self-adhesive plastic sheet. Prototype tests
also showed that the original endvanes left too big of a
gap between the wall and the edge of the grid which
yielded a smaller region of uniform flow. This was
remedied by custom fitting each rod with extended half-
vanes.
 Following Compte-Bellot and Corrsin (1966)
the ATG was placed in the contraction of the Virginia
Tech Stability Tunnel where the local cross section is
approximately 7' on edge and the cross-sectional area is
about 36% larger than the test section. This location was
chosen based on Rapid Distortion Theory calculations
(Batchelor and Proudman, 1954) which suggested that a
36% contraction would be just enough to cancel the
20% anisotropy of the turbulence observed in previous
active grid studies.. The streamwise location of the grid
was 2.75 m upstream of the test section entrance. Along
with the 24' long test section this gives a maximum
overall developing length of 10.0m. With a grid
spacing, M, measuring 8.25" this gives a maximum x/M
location of about 48.
The stepper motors driving the ATG are 20
Applied Motion Products (AMP) HT34-348. Wired in
bipolar parallel this configuration can supply up to 2140
oz-in of torque. These 200-steps/rotation motors can
operate on up to 6A per phase. Each motor is separately
controlled in half-stepping mode by an Intelligent
Motion System (IMS) IB 106 stepper motor driver
located inside the control room. The drivers are
powered in pairs by ten IMS IP806 80V (nominal)
unregulated linear power supplies. The IB 106 outputs
an adjustable current from 1 to 6A to the motors through
twisted shielded 16 gauge wire. In order to avoid
excessive heating of the motors/drivers the current was
set at 4.5A. To provide additional cooling a fan is
placed at the entrance of the weather cover duct and a
regular table fan is required to provide convective
cooling of the drivers.
The stepper motor drivers are controlled
through two coupled National Instruments (NI) PCI-
6534 digital 32 channel I/O cards with 32Mb RAM and
Direct Memory Access transfer from the computer’s
motherboard memory. At a rate of 140 kHz the cards
can output the required pulses much faster than the
inertia of the motors will allow for, and hence the speed
of the grid is limited by the friction/load attached to the
motors as well by the internal windings in the motors.
Under ideal conditions the motors under no load can be
have been tested in a uni-directional mode to get up to
speeds of around 40Hz (i.e. 40 revolutions per second)
without any load, while the ATG itself has been taken
up to 20Hz in test modes. However, for continuous
reliable operation over a long period of time the top
average speed has been limited to 10Hz. The low-end
limit of smooth operation is about 1Hz.
With the current computer control program
programmed in house, it is possible to operate the ATG
to operate in synchronous mode as well as randomly
with full control of the range of speeds, cruise times as
well as the linear acceleration/deceleration. While
synchronous operation, with its phase delay capability,
has a lot of potential for generating periodic
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
3
disturbances into the flow, it is a poor generator of
turbulence. Therefore the random mode was used for all
tests presented in this paper.
The random motion is defined as follows. A
single vane is accelerated from rest at a constant rate α
to an angular velocity Ω. The vane then remains at this
speed for a ‘cruise’ time T after which it decelerates at
the same constant rate to zero. The vane then
immediately reaccelerates in the reverse direction and
performs a qualitatively identical maneuver. The cruise
time and rotation rate are varied randomly between
successive maneuvers according to a top-hat probability
density functions with maximum deviations of t and ω
respectively. The motion of each vane is independent of,
and uncorrelated with all the others.
The ATG can also be used as a static grid by
aligning all the agitator vanes with the flow. At high
flowspeeds (Uref>15m/s) it is necessary to lock the rods
in place, as even the slightest misalignment can cause
the entire grid to close causing maximum blockage in
the tunnel.
Hot-wire anemometry
Two different single-wire hot wire probes were
used to obtain streamwise velocity measurements. A
TSI 1210T1.5 probe, with a 1.7-mm long 5-µm
diameter sensor wire was utilized for the majority of the
tests. At certain points the results were checked by using
a custom built Auspex single-wire probe with a 0.5-mm
long, 2.5-µm diameter sensor. The single wires were
operated using a Dantec 55M01 anemometer unit and
the system optimized to give a flat frequency response
to 12.5kHz (TSI probe) and 33kHz (Auspex probe).
These frequency response functions were measured and
accounted for in data processing, effectively extending
the flat response to the Nyquist frequency of the data
acquisition.
Output voltages from the anemometer bridge
were recorded by Dell Latitude using a Hewlett Packard
HPE1432A 16-bit A/D converter through an IEEE 1394
interface. Hot-wire signals were buffered by four ×10
buck-and-gain amplifiers containing calibrated
RC-filters to limit their frequency response to 50 kHz
(included in the probe response correction described
above). The A/D converter also sampled voltage
outputs from the wind tunnel digital thermometer and
Pitot-static pressure transducer was utilized. 100
records, with a record length of 218 samples were
obtained at a sampling rate of 51,200 Hz. This resulted
in a good resolution of frequencies in the low end of the
spectrum, while simultaneously allowing for further
averaging of the energy contained in the higher
wavenumbers during post-processing.
Three-component velocity measurements were
made downstream of the ATG using the computerized
hot-wire system described in detail by Wittmer et al.
(1997). A miniature four-sensor hot-wire probe
manufactured by Auspex Corporation (type
AVOP-4-100) was used. This probe consists of two
orthogonal X-wire arrays with each sensor inclined at a
nominal 45o angle to the probe axis. The 5µm sensors
are close to 0.8-mm in length. The total measurement
volume is approximately 0.5 mm3. Each of the four hot
wire sensors was operated separately using a Dantec
56C17/56C01 constant temperature anemometer unit.
The anemometer bridges were optimized to give a
matched frequency response greater than 25 kHz.
Anemometer output voltages were recorded using the
same amplifier/converter/computer system employed
with the single-wire probes. For measurements of
turbulence spectra the same sampling scheme was used.
For profiles of mean velocity and turbulence stresses (to
examine homogeneity and isotropy) typically 150
records each of 1600 samples were recorded at a
sampling rate of 1600Hz.
Probes were calibrated for velocity before and
after each sequence of measurements by placing them in
the uniform jet of a TSI calibrator and using King's law
to correlate the wire output voltages with the cooling
velocities. For the 3-component probe, velocity
components were determined from the cooling
velocities by means of a direct angle calibration,
described in detail by Wittmer et al. (1997). To
generate this calibration the probe was pitched and
yawed over all likely flow angles in the calibrator jet.
Comparing the known pitch and yaw angles with the
probe outputs gives the true relationship between the
cooling velocities and the flow angle. Hot-wire signals
were corrected for ambient temperature drift using the
method of Bearman (1971).
Other Equipment
A Dwyer Pitot-static probe was mounted on a
computer-controlled traverse gear described above for
uniformity studies. The same traverse gear was used to
measure velocity profiles using the 4-sensor probe. The
traverse gear has a blockage of about 10%. However,
probes were mounted 36” upstream of the traverse by
means of a streamlined sting support. For all other
measurements probes were mounted at the center of the
tunnel on an airfoil-section strut with a blockage of less
than 0.4%. Two wires were used to tie the strut to the
walls of the tunnel in order to counteract the effects of
unsteady lift and vibrations from gusts. The wires had to
be weighted to avoid a standing resonant wave forming
in the wire between the wall and the strut.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The ATG was tested and velocity spectra were
obtained using single hot-wire probes at x/M=37.3. Four
additional streamwise stations at x/M=21.3, 29.3, 41.0,
and 47.5 were added for a few baseline cases for
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
4
purposes of examining streamwise decay. Velocity
spectra were measured using the two single hot-wire
probes with different wire-lengths, for dissipation
estimation purposes. Uniformity studies were performed
first with a traversing pitot-static probe at x/M=37.3 and
then checked with a four-sensor hot-wire at x/M=37.3 to
establish the level of homogeneity and isotropy.
The nominal flowspeeds tested were 8, 10, 12,
16, and 20 m/s. Mean grid rotation rates were set at 2, 4,
6, 8, and 10 Hz (rev/s). Grid vane acceleration rate and
maximum deviations in rotation rate and cruise time
were also varied to examine the effects of these
parameters. Table 1 shows the conditions and locations
of all measurements together with some basic results.
Results from previous studies are included for
comparison purposes.
The coordinate system used is as follows: the
origin is at the center of the tunnel section with its
origin placed in the plane of the grid. The x-coordinate
is measured positive downstream, y is positive vertically
upwards and z completes the right-handed system.
The values for the turbulence intensity, u/U,
were found by integrating the one-dimensional energy
spectra based on the hot-wire data. Turbulence kinetic
energy was then estimated based on equation 1.
k = 23 u 2 1)
By computing the second moment of the spectra,
assuming local isotropy and invoking Taylor’s
hypothesis equation 2 was used to obtain an estimate for
dissipation rate:
∞
ε = 15∫ υκ 12 E11 (κ 1 )dκ 1 2)
0
This integration must be done with care as minor
contamination of the spectrum by high-frequency noise
can result in a large overestimate. From the cumulative
sum of the integrand, it was found in all cases that the
integral reached an asymptotic value at high frequency
before noise became a factor. This asymptotic value was
taken as the dissipation.
Comparison between results from the two
single hot-wire probes with different wire lengths was
used to verify the validity of the dissipation estimate. In
the four cases (11, 12, 24, 25, refer to table 1) where
both probes were used, the 1.7-mm and 0.5−mm probes
gave values of dissipation within 9%, after accounting
for the measured dynamic response of the anemometer
and data acquisition systems.
Dissipation was also calculated based on
equation 3 for a few cases where several streamwise
measurements had been obtained. This method gave
values typically 20% larger than equation 2 for the
downstream measurement locations, the discrepancy
increasing with distance upstream. In our opinion
estimates based on the decay of turbulence kinetic
energy are less reliable because of their greater
dependence on the low frequency end of the turbulence
spectrum, which shows the greatest departure from the
standard homogeneous isotropic form. The dissipation
estimates used here were therefore all obtained using
equation 2. This is consistent with Mydlarski and
Warhaft (1996, 1998).
Dk
ε= 3)
Dt
The characteristic macroscale L (Pope, 2001)
can be defined as:
3
L = k 2 /ε 4)
The ratio of the integral lengthscale l to the macroscale
approaches an asymptotic value of 0.43 as the Taylor
Reynolds Number increases. A slightly higher factor of
0.45 was used for calculations of the integral scale in
the present flow, such that l=0.45L. The Taylor
Reynolds number, Kolmogorov scale and Taylor
microscale were calculated from equations 6 and 7.
L k k2
Re L = = 5)
υ ευ
η −3
= Re L 4 6)
L 12 by traversing a four sensor hot wire in the test
2 1
λ = 10η L 3 3
7)
The range of the turbulence properties
produced with the present grid (see table 1) deserves
some comment. The turbulence intensity varies from 5.5
to 12% depending on location and other parameters.
(The highest levels were measured closest to the grid for
the highest flow speeds and lowest grid rotation rates.)
This seems roughly consistent with levels measured by
Mydlarski and Warhaft (1996,1998) and Kang et al.
(2002). Perhaps more remarkable are the integral scales
and Taylor Reynolds numbers, which reach 0.57m and
1250 respectively in case 26, and 0.59m and 1081 in
case 8. The very large integral scales in this case (and
thus the extreme Taylor Reynolds numbers), are roughly
twice the values reported by Mydlarski and Warhaft
(1998) and Kang et al. (2002), who had test section
widths about half the present size, and four times those
reported by Mydlarski and Warhaft (1996) who had a
test section one quarter the size (see table 1). Note that
the grid cell sizes M for these studies are not in this
proportion (Kang et al. used a grid cell size 1.6 times
that of Mydlarski and Warhaft (1998).) It thus appears
that the maximum turbulence scale produced by this
type of active grid scales approximately on the test
section size and not the grid cell size.
A possibly simplistic interpretation of this
result is that the largest integral scale may simply reflect
the largest scale of turbulence that can be contained
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
5
within the test section. However, this doesn’t explain
how such scales are generated. We suspect that scales
on the order of the wind tunnel size are generated
because, although they are in random motion, each vane
row rotates together, across the entire width or height of
the section. Thus the largest lengthscale will always be
the tunnel size.
Homogeneity and Isotropy
The uniformity of the mean flow was mapped
out by traversing a Pitot-static probe in each direction
from the center of the cross section at x/M=37.3 for
cases 5, 7, 10 and 12 (see table 1). U/Uref as a function
of z-coordinate (at y=0) can be seen in figure 3. The
measurements extend out to 3 inches from each wall.
Overall the flow looks uniform with the exception of the
boundary-layers close to the wall. There is a very slight
jet-effect centered around z=±25. This, we suspect, is
caused by the air escaping through the gaps between the
grid and the wall. The problem is a little more
pronounced at on the negative z side where the grid
does not have a bearing strip and thus there is less flow
blockage. This test was also repeated with the four-
sensor hot wire, which confirmed the Pitot results.
The homogeneity and isotropy of the test
section was mapped out at x/M=37.3 for cases 11 and
section. The 3 component velocity fluctuations as a
function of z-coordinate (y=0) for case 11 (Ω=4Hz and
a U=12.4 m/s can be seen in figure 4. A few conclusions
can immediately be drawn: The turbulent flow field is
closely homogenous and isotropic within 15" of the
centerline. Closer to the wind tunnel walls w-component
fluctuations fall off. Profiles in y show a similar fall off
in v-component fluctuations. This fall-off is an
inevitable result of the large integral scale in the flow
(of 0.394m) and the imposition of the non-penetration
condition on the wind tunnel walls. Based on the model
of Hunt and Graham (1978) this fall off should occur
over a distance equivalent to one integral scale from the
wall – consistent with what is seen here.
The fact that the ATG was placed in the
contraction seems to have alleviated some of the
problems with anisotropy experienced in earlier studies,
confirming that Compte-Bellot and Corsin’s (1966)
method is effective with this type of grid. Anisotropy
ratios u/v, w/u, for the inner 30" region in each direction
lie between 1.02 and 1.05 for the measured cases (see
table 1).
Spectra
Figures 5 through 8 show a representative sets
of power spectra measured at x/M=37.3 for different
grid rotation rates. Spectra are plotted in dimensional
form as E11(κ1) vs. κ1 where E11 is the one-dimensional
energy spectrum (in m3/s2) and κ1 is the wavenumber in
m-1, with the exception of figure 8 which has been
normalized using the Kolmogorov scaling. Note that a
wavelength equal to the tunnel width has a wavenumber
of 3.5 m-1. All spectra show a clear inertial subrange of
constant slope. Close examination of the spectra reveals
a slight increase in slope towards -5/3 with increase in
Taylor Reynolds number (table 1), at least in qualitative
agreement with Mydlarski and Warhaft (1998). The
extent of the inertial subrange increases with Reynolds
number and, in the highest Reynolds number case
shown in these figures (case 8) it extends over 2.2
decades. The greatest departure from the smooth
spectral shape expected for homogeneous turbulence
occurs at the lowest wavenumbers, where the
corresponding frequency is comparable to the grid
rotation rate, and the implied lengthscales are largest
compared to the 1.8m tunnel width. The influence of the
grid on the spectrum is most apparent in case 8 (figure
5), at wavenumbers around 1. The spectral signature of
the grid reduces both with reduction in flow speed and
increase in rotation rate, suggesting that it is controlled
primarily by the non-dimensional parameter U/(ΩM).
Turbulence Properties Vs Non-Dimensional Parameters
There are five major non-dimensional
parameters one can define that could control the
properties of the grid turbulence; the normalized
distance from the grid, the grid Reynolds number, the
vane Rossby number, the average number of vane
revolutions in each maneuver and, the normalized
maximum deviations in cruise time and rotation rate.
Symbolically these are
x MU U t ω
, , , T Ω, , 8)
M υ MΩ T Ω
Not included in the above non-dimensional parameters
is the acceleration rate a. Some limited study of the
effects of acceleration rate was made, but in most cases
this rate was kept constant at 20 rev/s2. As far as
practicable, the test matrix listed in table 1 was designed
to reveal the independent effects of these parameters.
Most parameter variations were made relative to the
baseline case for which,
x MU U Since data is only present for one value of TΩ it can not
= 37.3, = 1.7 ⋅ 105 , = 2.4
M υ MΩ
9)
t ω
TΩ = 25.13, = = 0.5 10)
T Ω
Dissipation
Figure 9 shows the relation between dissipation
rate vs MU/ν. As expected there is a strong relationship
between Reynolds Number and dissipation rate. Plotting
the same data as a function of U/MΩ shows no
significant dependency on this parameter.
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
6
Integral Lengthscale
Integral length scales appear to be a weak
function of MU/ν and a strong function of U/MΩ which
can be seen from figures 10 and 11. Figure 12 displays
Integral Length Scale vs. TΩ for deviations from the
baseline case. Several datapoints representing slightly
different grid conditions have been added to display the
effects of varying acceleration and the remaining non-
dimensional parameters. Integral length scale is
unaffected by a change in TΩ for the baseline condition,
however as t/T is decreased the integral lengthscale
starts decreasing as TΩ increases. There are not enough
points present to see the general shape of this trend, but
the falloff of the integral length is definite.
When manipulating ω/Ω it can be seen that the
integral lengthscale decreases linearly with ω/Ω. Since
data is only present for one value of TΩ it can not be
stated whether this is the case everywhere, or if this is
simply a characteristic at TΩ=25.13. It can also be seen
that if the acceleration is lowered below 10 rev/s2 then
the integral length goes up substantially.
Turbulence Intensity
u/U does not appear to be a consistent function
of MU/ν although, as can be seen from figure 13, the
variation of turbulence intensity with this parameter
does appear bounded from below. On the other hand,
there is a definite increasing relationship between
turbulence intensity and U/MΩ (figure 14) Figure 15
displays Turbulence Intensity Vs TΩ for deviation from
the base condition from 9) and 10) in the same way as
figure 12 does for the Integral scale. u/U first increases,
reaching a maximum around TΩ for the base condition,
and then falls off again. When t/T is lowered the
maximum value seems to decrease and the curve is
shifted to the right. There are however not enough
datapoints present to fully this trend. Manipulating
ω/Ω does not seem to induce a clear pattern. Although it
is possible that the Turbulence Intensity reaches a
maximum around ω/Ω=0.2 and that it falls off on either
side of this for a constant value of TΩ. can be seen that
the Integral length scale decreases linearly with ω/Ω.
be stated whether this is the case everywhere, or if this
is simply a characteristic at TΩ=25.13. Decreasing the
acceleration gives an increase in Turbulence Intensity,
with the step increase being kept constant by
successively halving the acceleration.
Taylor Reynolds Number and the Kolmogorov Scale.
Figure 16 displays Reλ as a function of
MU/ν. Obviously, the overall trend is very similar to
that observed for the integral length scale, but the figure
has nevertheless been included for quick reference. The
effect of MU/ν and U/MΩ on the Kolmogorov
lengthscale is shown in figures 17 and 18 respectively.
While the dependency of U/MΩ is relatively weak,
there is a remarkably good correlation for the
Kolmogorov lengthscale when plotted against MU/ν.
CONCLUSIONS
An active turbulence generating grid, based on
the rotating-vane design of Makita (1991) has been
developed for the Virginia Tech Stability Wind Tunnel.
At 2.13-m square, the grid is the largest of this type ever
developed. To improve the isotropy of the turbulence
generated, the grid was placed in the wind tunnel
contraction. Measurements made 37.3 mesh sizes (M)
downstream of the grid show a closely uniform mean
flow and homogeneous isotropic turbulence to within
one integral scale from the wall. Turbulence spectra
measured at the tunnel centerline over a range of
conditions and locations have a typical homogeneous
turbulence form, except in a few cases at the very
lowest wavenumbers where lengthscales are of the order
of the tunnel size and frequencies are comparable to the
rotation rates of the vanes.
By varying the flow speed and parameters
controlling the random motion of the vanes (rotation
rate, time between direction reversals and the limits of
the random variations in these parameters) a wide
variety of turbulence characteristics were produced,
with Taylor Reynolds numbers from 108 to 1250 and
integral scales from 6.8 to almost 60cm. The extreme
cases represent some of the highest Reynolds number
and largest scale homogeneous turbulent flows ever
generated in a wind tunnel. Comparing with earlier
studies it appears that the largest lengthscale that can be
produced by this type of grid scales with the size of the
wind tunnel, not the grid cell size.
The dependence of turbulence quantities upon
grid and flow parameters is investigated. Integral scale
is found to increase with the ratio of flow speed to mean
grid rotation rate U/(MΩ). Grid Reynolds number UM/ν
primarily controls the dissipation rate (and thus
Kolmogorov microscale) and the Taylor Reynolds
number.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank the Office of
Naval Research, in particular Drs. L Patrick Purtell and
Ronald Joslin, for their support under grant N00014-01-
1-0406. We also express our gratitude to Prof. Stewart
Glegg for his comments, discussion and ideas and to
Derek Geiger, Drew Vaughan, Jean-Baptiste Vaylet,
Chittiappa Muthanna Kolera, Bruce Stanger, Mike
Vaught, Bancroft Henderson, and Nicolas Spitz in
developing and running the grid. The extensive
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
7
cooperation of the Virginia Tech Stability Wind Tunnel,
under the directorship of Prof. Roger L. Simpson, is also
gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
1. Batchelor G K and Proudman, 1954, "The effect or
rapid distortion on a fluid in turbulent motion",
Quarterly Journal of Mechanics and Applied
Mathematics, vol. 7, part 1, pp. 83-103.
2. Bearman, P W, 1971, "Corrections for the Effect of
Ambient Temperature Drift on Hot-Wire
Measurements in Incompressible Flow," DISA
Information, no. 11, pp. 25-30.
3. Choi, K and R. L. Simpson, 1987: “Some Mean
Velocity, Turbulence, and Unsteadiness
Characteristics of the VPI & SU Stability Wind
Tunnel”, AOE Dept., Virginia Tech, Blacksburg
VA.
4. Hunt J C R and Graham J M R, 1978, "Free-stream
turbulence near plane boundaries", Journal of Fluid
Mechanics, vol. 84, part 2, pp. 209-235
5. Kang H S, Chester S and Meneveau C, 2002,
“Decaying turbulence in an active-grid-generated
flow and comparisons with large-eddy simulation”,
Submitted to Journal of Fluid Mechanics.
6. Makita H, 1991, "Realization of a large-scale
turbulence field in a small wind tunnel", Fluid
Dynamics Research, vol. 8, pp. 53-64.
7. Mydlarski L and Warhaft Z, 1996, "On the onset of
high-Reynolds-number grid-generated wind tunnel
turbulence", Journal of Fluid Mechanics, vol. 320,
pp. 331-368.
8. Mydlarski L and Warhaft Z, 1998, "Passive scalar
statistics in high Peclet number grid turbulence",
Journal of Fluid Mechanics, vol 358, pp. 135-175.
9. Pope, S.B, 2002, “Turbulent Flows”, 2000,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
10. Wittmer, K. S., Devenport, W. J. and Zsoldos, J. S.,
1998, “A four-sensor hot-wire probe system for
three-component velocity measurement”,
Experiments in Fluids, Vol. 24, No. 5-6, pp. 416.
See also Vol. 27, No. 4, pp. U1-U1, September
1999.
 Study Vanes Ω±ω (Hz) T±t (s) α (Hz/s) x/M U (m/s) u'/U (%) l (m) Reλ Tunnel size (m) u/v u/w
Makita (1991) 8x8 2 50 5 16.4 0.197 387 0.91×0.91 1.22
M&W (1996) 8x8 1 or 2 68 13.3 10.4 0.170 469 0.71×0.71
M&W (1996) 8x8 2 68 7.1 7.4 0.119 262 0.46×0.46 1.21
M&W (1996) 8x8 2 68 10.4 8.6 0.143 377 0.46×0.46
M&W (1996) 8x8 2 68 14.3 9.5 0.148 473 0.46×0.46
M&W (1998) 8x8 1 or 2 62 3.3 9.1 0.300 306 0.91×0.91
M&W (1998) 8x8 1 or 2 68 11.4 8.9 0.160 407 0.91×0.91
M&W (1998) 8x8 1 or 2 62 7 10.9 0.430 582 0.91×0.91
M&W (1998) 8x8 1 or 2 31 6.9 17.4 0.400 731 0.91×0.91
Kang et al. (2002) 5x7 5.3±1.8 20 11.9 16.0 0.270 755 0.91×1.22 1.188
Kang et al. (2002) 5x7 5.3±1.8 30 11.2 12.9 0.303 696 0.91×1.22 1.171
Kang et al. (2002) 5x7 5.3±1.8 40 11 10.8 0.323 654 0.91×1.22 1.167
Kang et al. (2002) 5x7 5.3±1.8 48 11.1 9.5 0.334 624 0.91×1.22 1.162
Present, case 1 10x10 0 (static) 20 37.3 7.8 2.1 0.084 108 1.82×1.82
Present, case 2 10x10 0 (static) 20 37.3 13.0 2.0 0.068 141 1.82×1.82
Present, case 3 10x10 0 (static) 20 37.3 15.5 2.0 0.068 155 1.82×1.82
Present, case 4 10x10 0 (static) 20 37.3 20.5 1.9 0.065 171 1.82×1.82
Present, case 5 10x10 2±1 2±1 20 37.3 8.0 7.2 0.382 518 1.82×1.82
Present, case 6 10x10 2±1 2±1 20 37.3 12.4 8.0 0.501 784 1.82×1.82
Present, case 7 10x10 2±1 2±1 20 37.3 15.0 8.0 0.549 900 1.82×1.82
Present, case 8 10x10 2±1 2±1 20 37.3 19.9 8.3 0.587 1081 1.82×1.82
Present, case 9 10x10 4±2 1±1/2 20 37.3 8.3 6.2 0.343 472 1.82×1.82
Present, case 10 10x10 4±2 1±1/2 20 37.3 10.9 6.8 0.366 582 1.82×1.82
Present, case 11 10x10 4±2 1±1/2 20 37.3 12.4 7.0 0.394 653 1.82×1.82 1.02 1.05
Present, case 12 10x10 4±2 1±1/2 20 37.3 15.4 7.5 0.458 815 1.82×1.82 1.04 1.03
Present, case 13 10x10 6±3 2/3±1/3 20 37.3 8.1 5.8 0.282 403 1.82×1.82
Present, case 14 10x10 6±3 2/3±1/3 20 37.3 12.2 6.6 0.347 587 1.82×1.82
Present, case 15 10x10 8±4 1/2±1/4 20 37.3 8.3 5.9 0.315 434 1.82×1.82
Present, case 16 10x10 8±4 1/2±1/4 20 37.3 10.7 6.2 0.352 541 1.82×1.82
Present, case 17 10x10 10±2 1/2±1/4 20 37.3 8.2 5.6 0.329 439 1.82×1.82
Present, case 18 10x10 4±2 1±1/2 20 47.5 12.4 6.3 0.377 591 1.82×1.82
Present, case 19 10x10 4±2 1±1/2 20 47.5 15.3 6.7 0.407 700 1.82×1.82
Present, case 20 10x10 4±2 1±1/2 20 41 12.2 6.8 0.385 625 1.82×1.82
Present, case 21 10x10 4±2 1±1/2 20 41 15.5 7.1 0.442 766 1.82×1.82
Present, case 22 10x10 4±2 1±1/2 20 29.3 12.4 8.1 0.414 722 1.82×1.82
Present, case 23 10x10 4±2 1±1/2 20 29.3 15.2 8.7 0.382 764 1.82×1.82
Present, case 24 10x10 4±2 1±1/2 20 21.3 12.5 9.8 0.352 714 1.82×1.82
Present, case 25 10x10 4±2 1±1/2 20 21.3 15.6 10.4 0.405 874 1.82×1.82
Present, case 26 10x10 2±1 2±1 20 21.3 20.2 11.9 0.574 1250 1.82×1.82
Present, case 27 10x10 4±2 3±1/2 20 37.3 12.33 6.83 0.382 642.7 1.82×1.82
Present, case 28 10x10 4±2 1 20 37.3 12.27 7.04 0.411 677.8 1.82×1.82
Present, case 29 10x10 4 1±1/2 20 37.3 12.41 7.10 0.322 583.7 1.82×1.82
Present, case 30 10x10 4±2 1±1/2 10 37.3 12.62 7.29 0.393 660.6 1.82×1.82
Present, case 31 10x10 4±2 0 20 37.3 12.64 8.04 0.504 774.6 1.82×1.82
Present, case 32 10x10 4±1 1±1/2 20 37.3 12.36 7.26 0.366 620.5 1.82×1.82
Present, case 33 10x10 4±2 1±1/2 5 37.3 12.51 7.62 0.439 700.7 1.82×1.82
Present, case 34 10x10 4±2 3±3/2 20 37.3 12.60 7.09 0.383 635.5 1.82×1.82
Present, case 35 10x10 4±2 2±1 20 37.3 12.48 7.20 0.39 645 1.82×1.82
Present, case 36 10x10 4±2 2 20 37.3 12.51 6.97 0.374 623.2 1.82×1.82
Present, case 37 10x10 4±3 2±1/2 20 37.3 12.48 7.10 0.413 662.5 1.82×1.82
Present, case 38 10x10 8±4 3/2±1/4 20 37.3 8.01 5.20 0.254 360.5 1.82×1.82
Present, case 39 10x10 8±4 0 20 37.3 8.46 6.50 0.359 495.6 1.82×1.82

Table 1. Comparison of present and previous studies of active grid generated turbulence

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 Placement of Active Grid

Figure 1: Schematic of the Virginia Tech Stability Wind Tunnel, showing the location of the Active Turbulence Grid

Perforated Luan vanes

7ft

Bearing strips
Figure 2a: Concept design of the Active Figure 2b: Actual Active Turbulence Grid
Turbulence Grid mounted in the contraction of the Virginia
Tech Stability Tunnel

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 1.00

0.80 2Hz10
5
2Hz15
7
4Hz10
10

U/U ref
0.60
4Hz15
12
0.40

0.20

0.00
-35 -30 -25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Z (in)

Figure 3: Uniformity measured with the Pitot-static probe as a function of z (y=0) at

x/M=37.3 for cases 5, 7 10 and 12
Q4Hz12(both)i.nh

0.8

0.7
R.m.s. velocity (m/s)

0.6 u
v
0.5 w

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
z (inches)
z (in)
Figure 4: Sample homogeneity and isotropy data. Velocity fluctuations plotted as
functions of z (y=0) at x/M=37.3, case 11

Figure 5: Energy spectra for cases 5 through 8 Figure 6: Energy spectra for cases 9 through 12

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 Figure 8: Normalized energy spectra for cases 12,
Figure 7: Energy spectra for cases 13 through 16
19, 21, 23, and 25

7 0.7

6 0.6
Dissipation, ε ( m2/s3)

5 0.5
Integral scale (m)

4 0.4

3 0.3

2 0.2

1 0.1

0 0
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000
UM/ν UM/ν

Figure 9: Dissipation rate vs. UM/ν for all cases Figure 10: Integral lengthscale vs. UM/ν for all
at x/M=37.3 cases at x/M=37.3

0.60
0.7
0.50
0.6
Integral Scale (m)

0.5 0.40
Integral Scale (m)

0.4 0.30

0.3
0.20
0.2
0.10 default acc: 10 Hz/s ω/Ω: 0.25 t/T: 1/8
0.1 t/T: 0/0 acc: 5 Hz/s t/T: 0
ω/Ω: 0
0.00
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
TΩ
U/MΩ

Figure 11: Integral lengthscale vs. U/MΩ for all Figure 12: Integral lengthscale vs. TΩ for
cases at x/M=37.3 variations from the baseline case x/M=37.3

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 9% 9%

8% 8%

7% 7%

Turbulence intensity
Turbulence intensity

6% 6%

5% Static 5%

4% grid 4%

3% 3%

2%
2%
1%
1%
0%
0%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000
U/M-Omega
UM/nu

Figure 14: Turbulence intensity vs. U/MΩ for all

Figure 13: Turbulence intensity vs. UM/ν for all
cases at x/M=37.3
cases at x/M=37.3

baseline
8.20%
t/T: 0/0
acc: 10 Hz/s 1200
8.00%
acc: 5 Hz/s
7.80% ω/Ω: 0.25 1000
Turbulence Intensity

ω/Ω: 0
7.60% 800
t/T: 1/8
7.40% t/T: 0
Reλ 600 Static
7.20%
400
grid
7.00%
200
6.80%
0
6.60%
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000 350000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
UM/ν
TΩ

Figure 15: Turbulence intensity vs. TΩ for Figure 16: Taylor Reynolds number vs. UM/ν for
variations from the baseline case at x/M=37.3 all cases at x/M=37.3

0.00040
0.00040
0.00035
0.00035
0.00030
Kolmogorov scale (m)

0.00030
Kolmogorov scale (m)

0.00025
0.00025

0.00020 0.00020

0.00015 0.00015

0.00010 0.00010

0.00005 0.00005

0.00000
0.00000
0 50000 100000 150000 200000 250000 300000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
UM/ν
U/MΩ

Figure 17: Kolmogorov microscale vs. UM/ν for Figure 18: Kolmogorov scale vs. U/MΩ for all
all cases at x/M=37.3 except static grid cases at x/M=37.3 except static grid.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics