1

Determination of Turbulence Level in the UC Davis

Aeronautical Wind Tunnel
J. Phoreman, S. Saephan, J.C. Vander Kam
Abstract
Turbulence spheres were used to determine the turbulence level in the UC Davis
Aeronautical Wind Tunnel. Three different tunnel velocities were evaluated through the
use of three different diameter spheres. Results confirmed that turbulence levels are on
the order of 0.1% of freestream throughout the majority of tunnel operating speeds.
Additionally, the method of turbulence spheres was evaluated and found to be useful and
relatively easy to implement.
Nomenclature
TF = turbulence factor
RNe = effective Reynolds number
RNtest = test Reynolds number
RNtunnel = critical Reynolds number for UC Davis AWT
RNC = critical Reynolds number
CD = drag coefficient based on cross sectional area
VC = critical velocity
= freestream air density
= freestream air viscosity
d = sphere diameter
Introduction
Variations in flow quality between two different wind tunnels will cause variations
between the results obtained from the two tunnels when like experiments are performed
for the same Reynolds number. One of these flow quality parameters is turbulence level.
An understanding of turbulence level is helpful in determining an effective Reynolds
number (RNe) for a given configuration and flow condition.
Spheres are known to have a distinct critical Reynolds number above which the flow on
the upstream face of the sphere is fully turbulent causing the drag coefficient to drop
dramatically. This is because the turbulent boundary layer results in separation further aft
than a laminar boundary layer, thus producing a smaller wake. The Reynolds number at
which this transition occurs is strongly dependent on the degree of turbulence in the wind
tunnel.
In this experiment, 3.5in, 5.5in, and 9in turbulence spheres were used to determine the
level of turbulence and resultant turbulence factor for the 33.6in 48in 12ft test section
of the UC Davis Aeronautical Wind Tunnel. The critical Reynolds number for the three
spheres was determined by examining the measured drag coefficient CD (based on crosssectional area) as a function of Reynolds number. The subsequent sections explain the
test set-up, the results obtained from this experiment, and a discussion of the results.

Test Setup
The turbulence sphere tests were conducted in the Aeronautical Wind Tunnel1 (AWT) at
the University of California, Davis. The AWT is an open circuit tunnel with a
contraction ratio of 7.5:1. Inside the contraction section is one honeycomb screen
followed by four anti-turbulence screens. The closed test section measures 33.6in 48in
12ft and has solid walls with tapered fillet corners. Forces and moments are measured
by a pyramidal balance system installed beneath the test section. The balance can
measure up to 50 pounds of drag with a load dependent accuracy which is typically
within 5%. Raw data is acquired through a 16-bit acquisition system tied to LabView.
The 125 horsepower motor can obtain a maximum tunnel flow speed of 165 mph.
The turbulence spheres were mounted onto a custom built mount shown in Figure 1. The
Title:
Creator:
CorelDRAW 7
Preview:
This EPS picture was not saved
with a preview included in it.
Comment:
This EPS picture will print to a
PostScript printer, but not to
other types of printers.

Figure 1

mount is made of two solid cylindrical stock pieces of 6061 T6 aluminum joined at a
right angle. The threaded end of the vertical piece is screwed directly into the tunnel
balance. A hole is drilled through the other end, perpendicular to the axis of the piece.
One end of the horizontal piece is inserted through this hole and tightened with a setscrew. The free end of the horizontal piece is inserted into a hole in the spheres. 85% of
the vertical mount was faired with a symmetric airfoil shaped fairing.
The 3.5in and 5.5in spheres were actually hollow Christmas ornaments. The ornaments
were neither perfectly smooth nor spherical, though close enough for the purpose of this
study. A slight parting line (parallel to the flow direction) and finishing blemishes were
noticeable, but were assumed to have little impact on the overall results. The 9in sphere
was borrowed from NASA Langley. It was produced using stereolithography and is very
nearly spherical with a less smooth, but more uniform surface than the ornaments.

Test Procedures
Prior to testing, theoretical values were calculated for the predicted transition velocities
and the drag forces expected from the experiment. These are presented here in Figure 2
as drag force versus freestream velocity for the conditions of the experiment. The
horizontal line in this plot indicates the predicted drag force at the theoretical transition
Drag Force vs. Freestream Velocity
16.00
9in. Sphere
14.00

5.5in. Sphere
3.5in. Sphere

12.00

Transition RN=385,000 @ (72 F, 29.92 in

Hg)

Force[lbf]

10.00

8.00

6.00

4.00

2.00

0.00
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Velocity [mph]

Figure 2

Reynolds number. For a given Reynolds number, the drag force is independent of sphere
diameter:
2 2
V 2 C D d 2 C D RN
=
8
8
Thus, we see a constant drag force for all sphere diameters at the critical Reynolds
number.

D=

Data Acquisition
Prior to taking data, a zero point is taken with the sphere mounted and the wind off. The
airspeed is then increased to level about 20 miles below the turbulence transition
threshold. Data are acquired at 5 mph increments up to and following transition. Near
the region of transition, data are acquired at smaller airspeed intervals. A second
calibration point is taken at the end of each test run. The data at each airspeed are the
average of five separate data samples and then averaged to arrive at a single data point for
each tunnel speed. Data gathered from the force balance were corrected through the use

of a calibration matrix developed by Yen and Bruchle.2 A correction was also included
based on the wind off zero taken before and after each test run. This allowed the data to
be shifted to correspond with the zero-drag signal from the force balance. Data was
collected using a 16-bit acquisition system tied to the LabView software package.

Data Reduction
Once the raw data were obtained it became clear that the contribution of the mounting
structure was not negligible for the smaller sphere sizes. To account for this, a correction
was made based on the assumption that the influence of the mount in the 9in sphere case
was negligible. This assumption is based on the fact that the mounting structure did not
protrude beyond the frontal projected area of the sphere. An average was then taken of
the drag coefficient values obtained for the 9in diameter sphere prior to the drag drop due
RN = 385,000
0.7

0.6

0.5
9in. Sphere

Cd

5.5in. Sphere
0.4
3.5in. Sphere

0.3

0.2

0.1
150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

RN

Figure 3

to transition. An average of the pre-drop values was taken for the other two size spheres
as well. The entire data set for the 3.5in and 5.5in spheres was then shifted an amount
equal to the difference between their pre-drop averages and the pre-drop average of the
9in. sphere case. The resulting data is presented in Figure 3. This shifting process results
in curves that are aligned about a drag coefficient 0.6 prior to the drag drop due to
transition. This allows the method outlined in Barlow, Rae & Pope to be used.3 From
Figure 3 it is clear that a fairly sharp drop in the drag coefficient is seen at the onset of
boundary layer transition. During the testing, it was also observed that the amount of
vibration in the mounting structure decreased dramatically as the transitional region was
surpassed. This is due to the fact that the separation characteristics of the sphere go from
large-scale vortex shedding to a more chaotic turbulent wake. The turbulent separation

results in smaller, less coherent vortices than the laminarly separated wake. Thus there is
less strong cyclic excitation of the mounting structure.
The method presented by Barlow et al. relates the turbulence level in a wind tunnel to the
Reynolds number at which the drop in drag of a sphere is observed. It is known that the
drop in drag due to transition for a perfectly smooth sphere in an atmospheric flow will
occur at a Reynolds number of 385,000.3 The turbulence factor for a wind tunnel may
then be found from:
TF =

385,000
RN C

where TF is the turbulence factor and RNC is the Reynolds number at which the
measured drag coefficient passes through 0.3 during transition from laminar to turbulent
boundary layer flow. The turbulence factor is then related to the tunnel turbulence level
using the relation obtained with hot-wire anemometry seen in Figure 4.4

Figure 4

Using this correlation, the turbulence level in the wind tunnel may be deduced from the
observed Reynolds number at which the drag of a sphere drops due to the transition of the
boundary layer. Using this method, the following turbulence levels are found:
Sphere Diameter (in.)
3.5
5.5
9.0

RNc
345,276
367,658
328,342

Vc (mph)
132.5
89.8
49.0

TF
1.12
1.05
1.17

Turbulence Level
0.1%
0.1%
0.1%

Clearly, the turbulence level is quite low. These findings are encouraging as low levels of
turbulence were found over a large range of operating test-section velocities.
Discussion
The results presented in the previous section are very encouraging as they demonstrate
the low turbulence level of the Aeronautical Wind Tunnel at UC Davis. There are some
factors, however, that may have been contributors to uncertainty in these findings. The
most significant of these was the intermittent vibration seen in the mounting structure and
sphere prior to transition. The 9in sphere weighed significantly more than the other two
and experienced greater vibration amplitudes especially in the transitional range.
Vibrations were present in the 3.5in and 5.5in spheres as well, but were of higher
frequency and lower amplitude. These vibrations may have affected the nature of the
flow over the spheres or the data obtained from the force balance. The drag
measurements obtained for the 9in sphere contained a great deal more scatter than the
smaller spheres. This phenomenon may be part of the reason that the transitional region
seen in the 9in sphere spans a larger range of Reynolds number than the two smaller
spheres. Though these vibrations appeared significant from observations taken at the time
of testing, the resulting data indicates that the actual impact of these vibrations is within
acceptable limits A stiffer mounting solution may yield results with less scatter.
Alignment of the spheres with the freestream and their position in the tunnel test section
is ruled out as a possible source of uncertainty due to the uniformity of the spherical
shapes. The position in the test section was kept as close to the centerline as possible and
is also thought to be negligible as a source of uncertainty.
Conclusion
Turbulence spheres were used to obtain drag coefficient measurements for a range of
Reynolds number flows. The critical Reynolds number for freestream atmospheric
transition was taken to be 385,000 and was divided by the measured critical Reynolds
number to obtain a turbulence factor. The turbulence factor was then used to reference
historical data taken with a hot-wire anemometer. This comparison yielded the turbulence
level as a percentage of free stream velocity The results indicate that the UC Davis
Aeronautical Wind Tunnel has a good quality of flow with freestream turbulence levels
on the order of 0.1% and a turbulence factor of less than 1.2.
The data obtained from this study serves to illustrate both the usefulness of turbulence
spheres in determining turbulence levels as well as the notable flow quality in the
Aeronautical Wind Tunnel at UC Davis. The method of turbulence spheres is relatively
simple and provides a good, if somewhat qualitative, understanding of the turbulence
levels in a wind tunnel. Based on these findings, it is clear that the AWT at UC Davis
produces excellent flow quality throughout a range of test section velocities.

References
1.
UC Davis Aeronautical Wind Tunnel website, http://windtunnel.engr.ucdavis.edu
2.

Bruchle, F., Yen, D.T., Calibration and Uncertainty Analysis for the UC Davis
Wind Tunnel Facility, UC Davis MAE Department Report, May 2000.

3.

Barlow, J.B., Rae Jr., W.H., Pope, A., Low-Speed Wind Tunnel Testing, Wiley
& Sons, Inc., New York, 1999. pp 147-150.

4.

Dryden, H.L., Keuthe, A.M., Effect of Turbulence in Wind Tunnel

Measurements, NACA Report 342, 1929.