The Origin of Turbulent Spots

M. W. Johnson A. Dris
Department of Engineering, The University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GH, United Kingdom

It has been suggested that a turbulent spot is formed when a transient separation occurs in the laminar boundary layer and this criterion has been successfully used by Johnson and Ercan (1996, 1997) to predict bypass transition for boundary layers subjected to a wide range of free-stream turbulence levels and streamwise pressure gradients. In the current paper experimental results are presented that support the premise that the formation of turbulent spots is associated with transient separation. Near-wall hot-wire signals in laminar and transitional boundary layers are analyzed statistically to produce probability distributions for signal level and trough frequency. In the laminar period the signal level is normally distributed, but during the inter-turbulent periods in the transitional boundary layer, the distribution is truncated at the lower end, i.e., the lowest velocity periods in the signal disappear, suggesting that these are replaced during transition by the turbulent periods. The number of these events (troughs) also correlates with the number of turbulent spots during early transition. A linear perturbation theory is also used in the paper to compute the streamlines through a turbulent spot and its associated calmed region. The results indicate that a hairpin vortex dominates the ow and entrains a low-momentum uid stream from upstream with a high-momentum stream from downstream and then ejects the combined stream into the turbulent spot. The hairpin can only exist if a local separation occurs beneath its nose and the current results suggest that this separation is induced when the instantaneous velocity in the near-wall signal drops below 50 percent of the mean.

Introduction
The turbulent spot can be considered as the building block of a turbulent ow. In the transition of a laminar boundary layer to a turbulent one, the turbulent spot plays a pivotal role. The rst appearance of turbulent spots determines the start of transition location and the subsequent growth of the spots dictates the length of the transition region prior to a fully turbulent boundary layer being achieved. Emmons (1951) rst recognized the intermittent nature of transitional ow and the role of the turbulent spot in the transition process. Narasimha (1957) measured the variation in intermittency through transition and showed that this was most accurately represented by a concentrated breakdown model, i.e., a model in which all the turbulent spots are initiated at the same streamwise location and the increase in intermittency through transition results purely from the growth in size of these spots. More recently, with the availability of more accurate measurement techniques for intermittency, the validity of this model has been challenged. Johnson and Fasihfar (1994) showed that a concentrated breakdown model did not give a good prediction of the evolution of spot statistics through transition and that a distributed breakdown model, i.e., one where spots are initiated at different streamwise locations resulted in improved prediction. Johnson (1994) and Johnson and Ercan (1996, 1997) and more recently Mayle and Schultz (1997) and Mayle et al. (1998) have shown that the pretransitional boundary layer near wall velocity uctuations, induced primarily by pressure uctuations associated with the free-stream turbulence, grow more or less linearly in the streamwise direction. These uctuations are of long wavelength (greater than 15 to 20 boundary layer thicknesses), but can be many times greater in amplitude (typically 20 to 100) in the near-wall region than in the free-stream. When these uctuations reach some critical level (approximately a local turbulence level of 23 percent according to Johnson (1994)) signicant numbers of turbulent spots are induced and transition commences. Natural transition induced through TollmienSchlichting waves also commences when the waves reach a similar critical amplitude. TS
Contributed by the International Gas Turbine Institute and presented at the 44th International Gas Turbine and Aeroengine Congress and Exhibition, Indianapolis, Indiana, June 710, 1999. Manuscript received by the International Gas Turbine Institute February 1999. Paper No. 99-GT-32. Review Chair: D. C. Wisler.

waves possess a shorter wavelength (typically 2 to 3 ) and also grow exponentially once the critical boundary layer Reynolds number is exceeded. However, it would appear that the criterion for the amplitude of uctuation that induces a turbulent spot is common to both modes of transition. The structure of turbulent spots has been studied extensively through both experiment (e.g., Cantwell et al. (1978); Seifert and Wygnanski (1994); Gostelow et al. (1995) and numerically (Bertolotti et al. (1992)); however, the mechanism leading to the initiation of the spot and turbulence production is not clear. Various mechanisms for the generation of turbulence in a boundary layer have been proposed. Sirovich and Karlsson (1997) believe that turbulent bursts are generated by the interaction of spanwise vorticity and oblique waves induced by the low frequency unsteadiness. On the other hand, Smith et al. (1991) attribute the turbulent bursts directly to the spanwise vorticity, produced through the unsteadiness, which induces transient separation of the boundary layer ow. This mechanism has also been proposed by one of the current authors (Johnson, 1994). The objective of the current paper is to investigate through both experiment and theory the process of turbulent spot initiation.

Theoretical Model for Spot Initiation

Johnson (1994) considered the effect of the uctuating pressure eld resulting from free-stream turbulence on the near-wall velocity prole within the laminar boundary layer. Experimental observations (Johnson and Ercan, 1996) of the near-wall velocity uctuations within laminar boundary layers show that the dominant wavelengths are much greater than the boundary layer thickness. Similar results have since been obtained theoretically by Mayle and Schultz (1997). If this is the case, it is reasonable to assume that the effect of the pressure eld close to the wall is restricted to two dimensions (i.e., the xy plane) and that there will be negligible phase shift over short distances from the wall. Experimental observations also indicate that near the wall the turbulence level is constant and hence as the mean velocity is proportional to y, it follows that the instantaneous velocity must also be proportional to y. With the assumptions so far made, a streamline in the near wall region will be as shown in Fig. 1. In the unperturbed ow, the streamline at a height y from the wall will carry uid at a velocity u. When the ow is perturbed by a local reduction in pressure, Transactions of the ASME

88 / Vol. 122, JANUARY 2000

Copyright 2000 by ASME

Downloaded 25 Mar 2009 to 193.1.104.5. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Fig. 1 Near-wall streamlines perturbed through the pressure eld induced by the free-stream turbulence

This relation indicates that the minimum value of the measured 2 1 1 velocity u u is 2 u when p( x, y) 4 u . If p( x, y) exceeds this value, the streamline no longer has an equilibrium position and an instability occurs. In fact, as the streamline is deected outward, the local pressure increases, decelerating the uid on the streamline still further, resulting in further deection of the streamline from the wall, until ultimately the uid stalls and ow separation results. This simple model therefore predicts that when a pressure perturbation induces the near-wall velocity to drop below 50 percent of the unperturbed local velocity, an instability arises, which results in local separation of the ow. It is the normal velocity v associated with this separation that is believed to initiate the turbulent spot.

however, the uid will accelerate and will also move closer to the wall (to satisfy 2-d continuity). Conversely, when the pressure increases, the streamline will move away from the surface. Along a streamline, assuming that the perturbation is time invariant and viscosity can be neglected, p0 y p x, y s
1 2

Experimental Work
The experimental measurements were made in the boundary layer wind tunnel in the Department of Engineering at the University of Liverpool. A detailed description can be found in Fasihfar (1992). The at plate has a length and width of 1.2 m and 0.7 m, respectively and a ow velocity of 30 m/s, which was constant along the plate, was used for all the current experiments. A turbulence generating grid, placed 0.75 m upstream of the plate leading edge, induced a free-stream turbulence level of 1 percent at the plate leading edge. A Dantec 55C01 anemometer and 55P15 probe were used for the boundary layer measurements. The signal was digitized over a sample length of 15 seconds using a sampling frequency of 10 kHz. The signals were linearized using a digital look-up calibration table. At each of 12 streamwise x locations, a boundary layer traverse consisting of 50 measurement points was made in order that the boundary layer integral parameters could be evaluated. One of the near-wall measurement points, which lay at approximately y/ 0.1, was selected for the signal analysis. The turbulent and inter-turbulent periods and hence the intermittency were determined using the method of Fasihfar and Johnson (1992), whereby the signal was high pass ltered to remove the lowfrequency laminar uctuations. The turbulent periods were then dened as those periods when the signal amplitude exceeded a specied threshold value. Full details, including the choice of the lter setting and threshold are given in Fasihfar and Johnson (1992). In the current work, the unltered signal was then analyzed in the turbulent and inter-turbulent periods to evaluate probability distributions for signal level and trough frequency.

2 u s,

(1)

where the pressure eld is assumed to be a function only of the free-stream perturbations and not the local conditions and u s is the velocity of uid on the streamline at a height y s above the wall. Continuity also requires that uy us ys (2)

Now with a general waveform w( x) for the perturbing pressure eld 1 p x, y s

2 ay s w x

uy us

w x

(3)

where a is a constant. Hence from Eq. (1), u2 2 a uy us

2

w x

2 us 2

(4)

and so, taking the root of this quadratic, which meets the requirement that u s u when w( x) 0, us u
2

1 2

1 4

2ay 2 w x u2

(5)

However, the velocity u given by u and hence u u 1 2

u measured at the xed height y is yu s ys

2 us u

Experimental Results
Boundary Layer Development. Figure 2 shows the boundary layer development along the plate. Laminar ow is maintained up to Re x 900,000, at which point the intermittency starts to increase, indicating that transition has commenced. In the current work transition is not fully completed at the last measurement station. The near-wall local turbulence level increases approximately linearly through the laminar layer to a value close to 23 percent at start of transition, as discussed by Fasihfar and Johnson (1992), and reaches a peak at 40 percent in the transition period

(6)

1 4

2p x, y u2

us u

(7)

Nomenclature
a p po Re Re x Re t constant in Eq. (3) instantaneous static pressure time invariant total pressure on a streamline U / boundary layer thickness Reynolds number Ux/ Reynolds number based on streamwise distance U / boundary layer momentum thickness Reynolds number time T u u lam u tur u ui us U Ut/ dimensionless time time-averaged local velocity time-averaged inter-turbulent period velocity time-averaged turbulent period velocity uctuating velocity u u instantaneous velocity velocity on a streamline free-stream velocity v w( x) x, y, z X, Y, Z ys normal uctuating velocity waveform streamwise, normal, and spanwise coordinates x/ , y/ , z/ dimensionless coordinates normal distance from wall to streamline boundary layer thickness uid density

Journal of Turbomachinery

JANUARY 2000, Vol. 122 / 89

Downloaded 25 Mar 2009 to 193.1.104.5. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

0.9 and hence the whole distribution curve is shifted to the left. This asymmetry becomes greater as the transition proceeds with very low probabilities below 50 percent of the local inter-turbulent mean velocity at any streamwise location. This observation therefore lends strong experimental support to the suggestion by Johnson and Ercan (1996, 1997) that turbulent spots are induced when the near-wall instantaneous velocity drops below 50 percent of the mean, in that it is these parts of the signal which apparently vanish from the inter-turbulent periods. Beyond Re x 1,340,000, a second peak resulting from the turbulent periods, which are associated with a higher mean velocity, develops at a u i /u lam 1. This peak becomes dominant as the end of transition is approached and also adopts a normal distribution prole about a mean level of u tur/u lam. Trough Frequency. The trough frequency is dened as the frequency at which minima occur in the signal. In the present work, the distribution of the trough depths is computed within the laminar or inter-turbulent period as the frequency with which minima occur within each bin. This frequency is then divided by the bin size to remove the effect of the number of bins chosen. Frequency distributions for the troughs (Fig. 4) again show that the instantaneous velocity rarely drops below 50 percent of the mean even though signicant frequencies are detected over 200 percent of the mean. The total trough rate in the inter-turbulent period (Fig. 5) remains constant at about 800 Hz as the boundary layer develops. If each time the instantaneous velocity drops below the 50 percent threshold, a turbulent spot is induced, the number of observed threshold events should be equal to the number of spots induced. Figure 5 shows that during the early part of transition, the spot rate ( number of turbulent periods/sample time) is indeed approximately equal to the rate at which troughs disappear into the

Fig. 2

Boundary layer development

before decreasing to a level of about 25 percent as the end of transition is approached. The reason for the peak at midtransition is primarily because of the difference in the mean velocities in the turbulent and inter-turbulent periods, and the local turbulence levels within each period considered separately are considerably lower, as discussed by Fasihfar and Johnson (1992). Signal Level Probability. The signicance of the pretransitional development of the near-wall velocity uctuations in the triggering of turbulent spots has been recognized for a number of years (Johnson (1994) and Mayle and Schultz (1997)). The mechanism through which the spots are induced has not clearly been identied, however, and it was with this objective in mind, that the near-wall hot-wire signals at y/ 0.1 were analyzed to try to identify those parts of the signal responsible for inducing spots. The distribution of occurrence level for each sample (Fig. 3) was determined by rst nondimensionalizing the instantaneous velocities with the inter-turbulent mean velocity. The range of observed instantaneous velocities between the minimum and maximum value was then divided into approximately 25 equal subranges or bins. The sample, which consisted of 150,000 instantaneous velocity measurements, was then analyzed to determine the proportion of the total sample time spent in each subrange. The results were then divided by the bin size, such that the choice of the number of bins did not affect the computed probability. The spread of observed values increases necessarily as the rms uctuation level increases with distance downstream, as shown in Fig. 3. The probability curve is almost symmetric in the laminar period up to Re x 900,000, but at the rst measurement station within the transition region, Re x 1,030,000, the symmetry is lost. Although there is a signicant probability that the velocity will exceed 150 percent of the local mean, the probability is almost negligible that it will be below 50 percent. The loss of the lowvelocity events also increases the inter-turbulent mean u lam, which results in the most probable signal level u i /u lam reducing from 1 to 90 / Vol. 122, JANUARY 2000

Fig. 3

Signal level probabilities

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 25 Mar 2009 to 193.1.104.5. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Fig. 4

Trough frequency distributions

turbulent period ( intermittency trough rate). This is not the case farther downstream, however, as the number of observed spots will be less than the total number induced as the spots will be less than the total number induced as the spots will begin to merge with their neighbors as they grow in size. Nevertheless, the result shown in the gure conrms that the induction of a spot is associated with the disappearance of a trough in the near-wall velocity signal. Concentrated or Distributed Breakdown. Whatever the criterion for the induction of turbulent spots, for concentrated breakdown to occur, the criterion can only be satised over a very short streamwise distance (Narasimha, 1957). This would seem to ne-

glect the statistical nature of the free-stream turbulence responsible for inducing bypass transition. Consider, for example, a steady ow over a at plate, but suppose that the free-stream turbulence level varies with time. Assuming the variation is made fairly slowly, we would expect the transition location to move downstream as the turbulence level is decreased and to move upstream as it is increased. This is not dissimilar from a wake-induced transition experiment (e.g., Halstead et al., 1995) where periods of high free-stream turbulence in the wakes result in large diversions upstream in the transition location. This is an extreme example of what happens when we have a nominally constant free-stream turbulence level. If the turbulence level were measured over periods of only a few wavelengths, then its magnitude would be found to vary considerably, because of its statistical nature. This variation would thus lead to a variation in the location at which turbulent spots are generated and hence to a distributed breakdown. In the case of natural transition the amplitude of the TollmienSchlichting waves also varies with time, but they grow very rapidly in the streamwise direction and hence a large number of spots will be induced over a relatively short streamwise distance and thus can be modeled approximately as concentrated breakdown. However, for bypass transition the growth in amplitude is approximately linear and hence the spot initiation sites will have a signicant streamwise distribution. This effect is apparent in most measured intermittencies (e.g., Gostelow and Walker, 1991) where the intermittency consistently exceeds the Narasimha concentrated breakdown model value by between 2 and 5 percent in the early transition period, but is accurately modeled by a distributed breakdown model (Johnson and Ercan, 1997). In the current experiments occasional spots (at a frequencies less than 1 Hz and which result in intermittencies less than 0.01 percent) were observed at measurement stations in the laminar boundary layer Re x 900,000. These very early turbulent spots have a negligible effect on the time mean boundary layer parameters and are generally ignored by researchers, but their existence is evidence of occasional extraordinary low troughs in the near-wall velocity signal, which induce occasional turbulent spots in the laminar boundary layer.

Theoretical Work
The theoretical results described in the current paper were obtained using the method described by Johnson (1998a, 1999), which is similar to the method of Li and Widnall (1989). A steady nondeveloping boundary layer ow is perturbed by a fully threedimensional viscid linear perturbation. The method is therefore only strictly accurate for small linear perturbations and turbulence, which results from nonlinear perturbations, is not predicted. Nevertheless, Johnson (1998b) showed that the geometric development of the linear perturbation region was very similar to that of the measured (and hence nonlinear) development of a turbulent spot and its associated calmed region. Figure 6 shows the streamlines through the perturbed region at T Ut/ 60 for Re 4000 (Re 470) as seen by an observer travelling at 50 percent of the free-stream velocity (approximately the average velocity of the perturbation region). It should be noted therefore that uid with a velocity less than 0.5 U (i.e., Y 0.25) is seen by this moving observer to approach the perturbed region from the front, whereas uid with a greater velocity (Y 0.25) is seen to approach from the rear. The Y axis in the gure has been scaled by a factor of 5 and streamlines originating from each Y level are staggered by Y 1 for clarity. In the gure all the streamlines originating above Y 0.1 travel around the core of a hairpin vortex at X 30. The streamlines beneath this level pass beneath the nose of the hairpin vortex and are deected along its legs around the calmed region, which is bounded by the vortex. These streamlines are in fact within the viscous sublayer (Y 0.1 corresponds to y 9 at this Reynolds number). The streamlines originating at Y 0.2 are turned by the hairpin vortex through 180 deg to move away from the surface to mix with uid carried JANUARY 2000, Vol. 122 / 91

Fig. 5

Minima and burst rates along the plate

Journal of Turbomachinery

Downloaded 25 Mar 2009 to 193.1.104.5. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Fig. 6

Streamlines through the perturbed region

2 Probabilities for the near-wall signal level in the laminar and inter-turbulent periods show that instantaneous velocities below approximately 50 percent of the mean are negligibly small even though velocities in excess of 200 percent are present. This observation appears to conrm that occurrences of instantaneous velocities below this threshold are responsible for the initiation of turbulent spots. This hypothesis is also supported by the fact that the occurrence rate of such events (troughs) is approximately equal to the burst rate within the early transition period. In mid and late transition, merging of spots occurs and hence the burst rate becomes lower than the trough rate. 3 A linear perturbation model is used to predict the streamlines through a turbulent spot and its associated calmed region. The results show that the hairpin vortex is responsible for sustaining the turbulent spot and that the vortex depends on the existence of a local separation of the ow. The separation is induced when the local instantaneous velocity drops below 50 percent of the mean.

References
by streamlines originating behind the perturbed region at Y 0.25. The streamlines originating from Y 0.4 and 0.5 dip toward the wall through the calmed region to replace the uid ejected by the hairpin (Y 0.2 streamlines). This results in an increase in the boundary layer momentum in the calmed region and hence a local thinning of the boundary layer. The streamlines from Y 0.4 and 0.5 pass through the calmed region to a point below the nose of the hairpin vortex. At this point, the uid slows rapidly because of the increasing shear due to the wall below and the hairpin vortex above. The uid is then entrained by the hairpin and is ejected forward along a similar path to the streamlines originating from Y 0.2. The fact that the uid streams originating from upstream (Y 0.2) and downstream (Y 0.4 and Y 0.5) have signicantly different energy levels will lead to high local shear rates as the two streams mix out in the hairpin vortex and forward of it following ejection and this leads to the turbulence, which identies this region as the turbulent spot. In the current work, the region where the high-momentum stream from downstream (streamlines from Y 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5) meets the low-momentum stream from upstream (streamlines from Y 0.1 and 0.2), is of particular interest. Where these two streams meet, the high-momentum stream bifurcates with one part continuing to the spot and the remainder turning through 180 deg into the calmed region. The bifurcation occurs along a line between the calmed region and the hairpin vortex, which forms an open loop. The front of the loop lies beneath the nose of the hairpin vortex and travels with it (i.e., at approximately 50 percent free-stream velocity); however, the legs of the loop trail behind the nose and end on the wall at separation points. It is therefore a necessary condition, for the establishment of the hairpin and the turbulent spot and its associated calmed region, that the boundary layer is perturbed sufciently to induce a local separation of the ow. The hairpin vortex and bifurcation point have also been observed in experiments (e.g., Cantwell et al., 1978).
Bertolotti, F. P., Herbert, Th., and Spalart, P. R., 1992, Linear and Non-linear Stability of the Blasiuis Boundary Layer, Jnl. of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 242, pp. 441 474. Cantwell, B., Coles, D., and Dimotakis, P., 1978, Structure and entrainment in the plane of symmetry of a turbulent spot, Jnl. of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 87, pp. 641 672. Emmons, H. W., 1951, The Laminar Turbulent Transition in a Boundary Layer Part 1, Jnl. of Aero. Sciences, Vol. 18, pp. 490 498. Fasihfar, A., 1992, Mechanisms of boundary layer transition, Ph.D. thesis, University of Liverpool. Fasihfar, A., and Johnson, M. W., 1992, An improved boundary layer transition correlation, ASME Paper No. 92-GT-245. Gostelow, J. P., Melwani, N., and Walker, G. J., 1995, Effects of Streamwise Pressure Gradient on Turbulent Spot Development, ASME JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY, Vol. 118, pp. 737743. Gostelow, J. P., and Walker, G. J., 1991, Similarity behavior in transitional boundary layers over a range of adverse pressure gradients and turbulence levels, ASME JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY, Vol. 113, pp. 617 625. Halstead, D. E., Wisler, D. C., Okiishi, T. H., Walker, G. J., Hodson, H. P., and Shin, H.-W., 1997, Boundary layer development in axial compressors and turbines. Part 4. Computations and Analyses, ASME JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY, Vol. 119, pp. 128 139. Johnson, M. W., 1994, A bypass transition model for boundary layers, ASME JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY, Vol. 116, pp. 759 764. Johnson, M. W., and Fasihfar, A., 1994, Properties of turbulent bursts in transitional boundary layers, Int. Jnl. of Heat and Fluid Flow, Vol. 15, No. 4, pp. 283290. Johnson, M. W., and Ercan, A. H., 1996, A boundary layer transition model, ASME Paper No. 96-GT-444. Johnson, M. W., and Ercan, A. H., 1997, Predicting bypass transition: A physical model versus empirical correlations, ASME Paper No. 97-GT-475. Johnson, M. W., 1998a, The structure of turbulent spots, submitted for journal publication. Johnson, M. W., 1998b, Turbulent spot characteristics in boundary layers subjected to streamwise pressure gradient, ASME Paper No. 98-GT-124. Johnson, M. W., 1999, Prediction of turbulent spot growth rates, ASME Paper No. 99-GT-31. Li, F., and Widnall, S. E., 1989, Wave patterns in plane Poiseuille ow created by concentrated disturbances, Jnl. of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 208, pp. 639 656. Mayle, R. E., and Schultz, A., 1997, The path to predicting bypass transition, ASME JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY, Vol. 119, pp. 405 411. Mayle, R. E., Dullenkopf, K., and Schultz, A., 1998, The turbulence that matters, ASME JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY, Vol. 120, pp. 402 409. Mayle, R. E., 1999, A theory for predicting the turbulent spot production rate, ASME JOURNAL OF TURBOMACHINERY, Vol. 121, pp. 588 593. Narasimha, R., 1957, On the Distribution of Intermittency in the Transition Region of a Boundary Layer, J. of Aero. Sciences, Vol. 24, pp. 711712. Seifert, A., and Wygnanski, I. J., 1994, On Turbulent Spots in a Laminar Boundary Layer subjected to Self-Similar Adverse Pressure Gradient, Jnl. of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 296, pp. 185209. Sirovich, L., and Karlson, S., 1997, Turbulent drag reduction by passive mechanisms, Nature, Vol. 388, pp. 753755. Smith, C. R., Walker, J. D. A., Haidari, A. H., and Sobrun, U., 1991, Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A336, pp. 131175.

Conclusions
1 A simple analytical model is presented, which suggests that the pressure uctuations induced by the free-stream turbulence perturb the near-wall velocity in the laminar layer. If the instantaneous velocity is reduced to 50 percent of the unperturbed velocity, transient separation occurs and a turbulent spot is initiated.

92 / Vol. 122, JANUARY 2000

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 25 Mar 2009 to 193.1.104.5. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm