Direct drag measurements in a turbulent flat-plate boundary layer with turbulence manipulators

The effect of turbulence manipulators on the turbulent boundary layer above a flat plate has been investigated. These turbulence manipulators are often referred to as Large Eddy Break Up (LEBU) devices. The basic idea is that thin blades or airfoils are inserted into the turbulent flow in order to reduce the fluctuating vertical velocity component v above the flat plate. In this way, the turbulent momentum transfer and with it the wall shear stress downstream of the manipulator should be decreased. In our experiments, for comparison, a merely drag-producing wire also was inserted into the boundary layer.In particular, the trade-off between the drag of the turbulence manipulator and the drag reduction due to the shear-stress reduction on the flat plate downstream of the manipulator has been considered. The measurements were carried out with very accurate force balances for both the manipulator drag and the shear stress on the flat plate. As it turns out, no net drag reduction is found for a fairly large set of configurations. A single thin blade as a manipulator performed best, i.e., it was closest to break-even. However, a further improvement is unlikely, because the device drag of the thin blade elements used here has already been reduced to only that due to laminar skin friction, and is thus the minimum possible drag. Airfoils performed slightly worse, because their device drag was higher. A purely drag-producing wire device performed disastrously. The wire device, which consisted of a wire with another thin wire wound around it to suppress coherent vortex shedding and vibration, was designed to have (and did have) the same drag as the airfoil manipulator with which it was compared. The comparison showed that airfoil and blade manipulators recovered 75–90% of their device drag through a shear-stress reduction downstream, whereas the wire device recovered only about 25–30% of its device drag.Conventional LEBU manipulators with airfoils or thin blades produce between 0.25% and 1% net drag increase, whereas the wire device (with equal device drag) produces as much as 4% net drag increase. These data are valid for the specific plate length of our experiments, which was long enough in downstream extent to realize the full effect of the LEBU manipulators. Turbulence manipulators do indeed decrease the turbulent momentum exchange in the boundary layer by rectifying the turbulent fluctuations. This generates a significant shear-stress reduction downstream, which is much more than just the effect of the wake of the manipulator. However, the device drag of the manipulator cannot be reduced without simultaneously reducing the skin friction reduction. Thus, the manipulator's device drag exceeds, or at best cancels, the drag reduction achieved by the shear-stress reduction downstream. A critical survey of previous investigations shows that the suggestion that turbulence manipulators may produce net drag reduction is also not supported by the available previous drag force measurements. The issue had been stirred up by less conclusive measurements based on local velocity data, i.e., data collected using the so-called momentum balance technique.List of symbols b lateral breadth of test plate - c chord length of turbulence manipulator - d diameter of wire manipulator - e distance of the elastic center from the leading edge of the manipulator airfoil - h height of manipulator above test plate - q dynamic pressure of the potential flow above the test plate - s spacing of turbulence manipulator elements - t thickness of turbulence manipulator elements - u,v,w fluctuating velocities in downstream, platenormal, and lateral directions - x distance from the leading edge of the test plate in the downstream direction - x ₀ location of the trailing edge of the first manipulator - z distance from test plate center in the lateral direction - C _D drag coefficient - C _L lift coefficient - D _m drag of manipulated plate including device drag and shear stress, calculated from manipulator location to downstream location - D ₀ drag of unmanipulated plate boundary layer, consisting of the shear stress calculated from manipulator location to downstream location - F drag force - F ₀ total skin friction force, measured over a distance from 0.4 m upstream of manipulator to 6.35 m downstream of manipulator, measured without turbulence manipulator - F _LEBU device drag force of the LEBU, i.e., the turbulence manipulator - F _m total drag force of manipulated plate, consisting of - F _LEBU and skin friction force, measured over a distance from 0.4 m upstream of manipulator to 6.35 m downstream - F _cf skin friction force as measured by the floating element balance, manipulated case - F _cfo skin friction force, as measured by the floating element balance, unmanipulated case - F _cf skin friction saving, defined as F _cf = F _cf – F _cfo - F _cf cumulative skin friction savings, i.e., the sum of the skin friction savings F _cf , added up from the location of the manipulator to the downstream location , as shown in Fig. 11. In Fig. 13 the cumulative skin friction savings are summarized up to their asymptotic value, reached at 200 - Re _c Reynolds number of the manipulator elements, calculated with the chord length c and the local velocity in the boundary layer - Re ₀ Reynolds number at the location x ₀ of the manipulator, calculated with the momentum thickness of the boundary layer and the mean flow velocity U - U mean flow velocity in the potential regime of the wind tunnel test section - angle of attack of the manipulator airfoils - ₀ boundary layer thickness at the location x ₀ of the manipulator - dimensionless distance from the manipulator in the downstream direction, defined as - density of the air - ₀ local skin friction shear stress, unmanipulated case - _{0 Average} skin friction shear stress, average value over the lateral span (b = 2 m) of the test plate, unmanipulated case - _m local skin friction shear stress, manipulated case - momentum thickness of the undisturbed turbulent boundary layer at the location x ₀ The authors would like to thank Prof. H. H. Fernholz for his scientific and administrative support. The hardware for the experiments was designed and built by C. Daase, W. Hage and R. Makris. Funding for the project was provided by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and is gratefully acknowledged.