Abstract
Difficulties in studying turbulent flows stem, in part, from the lack of highfrequency, highresolution measurements to interrogate smallscale structures and their rapid evolution. We present analysis of data from experiments employing a burstmode laser system to capture both spatially resolved velocity fields and their dynamics using highresolution particle image velocimetry measurements at 100 kHz. We show directly that velocity fluctuations in axisymmetric jet flows are inhomogeneous and anisotropic. The peak of the timedelayed cross correlation function decays exponentially in time and its velocity is smaller than the convection velocity; thus, Taylor’s frozen hypothesis fails to generalize for these inhomogeneous flows. Structure functions are isotropic only at small distances. They exhibit extended selfsimilarity, but no inertial range is found where the Kolmogorov \(\frac{2}{3}\)law is satisfied. Spectralenergy density of the flow, although anisotropic, is consistent with the Kolmogorov–Obukhov \(\frac{5}{3}\)law in the flow direction.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Turbulent flows exhibit rapid, irregular spatial and temporal variations in flow velocity fields, whose statistical features are used to characterize turbulence and study its evolution under external changes implemented on the flow. For example, timeaveraged velocity fields of turbulent flows can be studied as a function of the Reynold’s number Re = vL_{s}/ν, where v and L_{s} are characteristic flow velocity and length scale in the flow, and ν the kinematic viscosity^{1,2}. The flow transitions from laminar to turbulent as Re increases beyond a threshold. The dynamics of the consequent smallscale structures in turbulent flows are chaotic and are typically characterized through appropriate statistical objects such as crosscorrelation coefficients and structure functions^{2}.
Most theoretical developments on turbulence are predicated on general considerations on energy transmission between scales^{3,4,5}. Specifically, it is assumed that a hierarchy of eddies of different scales acts as intermediaries in energy transmission^{6}. Eddies whose size is larger than the Taylor microscale \(\lambda =\sqrt{10}{L}_{s}R{e}^{1/2}\) transmit the entire energy to smaller scales; viscous dissipation is only active at scales smaller than λ^{7}. The smallest scale of turbulent flow is the Kolmogorov scale η = L_{s}Re^{−3/4}, by which point viscosity has induced complete energy dissipation^{3}. The derivation of observed facets of statistical objects requires an additional assumption that for sufficiently large Re, smallscale turbulence is isotropic and homogeneous^{3}. This assumption is justified by noting the reduction of inhomogeneity and anisotropy during the energy transfer between scales is dominated by the chaotic nature of the flow^{2}. Under these conditions dimensional analysis yields two celebrated results: (1) the “\(\frac{2}{3}\)law,” on the growth of structure functions and (2) the “\(\frac{5}{3}\)law” on the decay in spectralenergy density^{2,3,5}. Although these predictions have been experimentally verified in some configurations^{8}, anomalous scaling of higher order structure functions^{9} and anisotropic effects^{10,11,12} have been reported in others.
Scaling laws are expected to hold only at sufficiently high Reynolds numbers. Since Taylor and Kolmogorov scales decrease with increasing Re, experimental validation of the scaling laws require flow velocity measurements at suitably high spatial and temporal resolution. This has been a major challenge for testing scaling laws. Experimental tests have relied on Taylor’s frozen hypothesis, that in homogeneous flows turbulent fluctuations propagate downstream with no change^{7,13,14}. Under this scenario, highfrequency singlepoint measurements, for example using hotwire anemometry, can be used to infer spatial variations in velocity fields, permitting tests of scaling laws. However, whether the isotropy and homogeneity of velocity fields at small scales is valid in configurations that are inhomogeneous at large scales, and if Taylor’s hypothesis and scaling laws are valid in such configurations remains to be tested. Here, the need for highresolution, highfrequency measurements of flow fields cannot be circumvented.
The critical technology that facilitated the resolution of the turbulent flow in both spatial and temporal domains was the development of a longduration (100ms), highenergy burstmode laser capable of producing pairs of pulses at a rate of 5 kHz to 1 MHz^{15,16}. It permitted the performance of twodimensional velocity measurements employing particle image velocimetry (PIV) at a rate of 100 kHz and a resolution of flow features (both spatially and temporally) almost down to the Taylor microscale for Re < 80,000. For example, at 100 kHz in the present study, we acquired ~ 8500 velocityfield snapshots within the 100ms duration. Turbulent jet flows of Re between 21,000 and 78,000 emanated from a cylindrical inlet of diameter D = 4.7 mm. As it moved downstream, the axisymmetric flow expanded (nearly) linearly. Velocity measurements at 100 kHz were made on a grid of 51 × 67 of lattice size 0.268 mm placed symmetrically in an axial plane approximately 13D downstream of the inlet, as shown in Fig. 1a. Figure 1b is a snapshot of the flow velocity field for Re ≈ 78,000. The Taylor microscale and the Kolmogorov scale for the flow are 165 μm and 3 μm, respectively. Statistical objects were computed through time averages, which were assumed to be reliable surrogates for ensemble averages^{2}. Since the lattice size ~ Taylor microscale, nearly the entire inertial scale could be examined. The PIV measurements were recorded once it was determined that the flow had stabilized and the seed density was sufficiently high throughout the flow (see Methods). That statistical objects had converged was verified by computing them over different time intervals.
We show directly that turbulent fluctuations in the jet flow are neither isotropic nor homogeneous. We also show that the peak of the timedelayed crosscorrelation coefficient decays exponentially in time and flows slower than the convection velocity. Thus, we infer that Taylor’s frozen hypothesis^{7} is modified in the inhomogeneous jet flow. Further, structure functions fail to exhibit an inertial range where they scale^{3}. However, extended selfsimilarity^{17} is found to hold except at small distances; thus, once the form of the secondorder structure function is established, that of higherorder structure functions can be approximated. Finally, spectral energy densities are anisotropic but are shown to be consistent with the Kolmogorov–Obhukov law^{4,5} in the flow direction.
Results and discussion
Inhomogeneity of velocity fluctuations
Denote the time average of the velocity field v(R; t) and its deviation from the mean by \(\bar{v}({\bf{R}})\) and \({{\bf{v}}}^{\prime}({\bf{R}};t)\) respectively, where R is measured from the center of the nearboundary. The axial and radial projections \({\bar{v}}_{z}({\bf{R}})\) and \({\bar{v}}_{r}({\bf{R}})\) are given by the Tollmien solution^{18,19} derived by expressing the Reynold’s equation^{1} in cylindrical polar coordinates (r, θ, z) and noting that for sufficiently large Re, the viscous stresses are insignificant compared to turbulent shear stresses. As shown in Supplementary Note 2, the experimental velocity fields satisfy the Tollmien solution, which is neither isotropic nor homogeneous. It has generally been posited that even in such cases, smallscale turbulent flows are isotropic and homogeneous at sufficiently large Re^{2}. However, more recent work has cautioned against the conjecture for inhomogeneous flows^{20}.
We implement a preprocessing step to eliminate recurrent features of the flow, whose origins may lie in imperfections of the experimental setup, acoustic reflections from laboratory walls, etc. Theoretical approaches consider only the remaining nonrecurrent facets of a flow. The implementation, based on robust mode analysis^{21}, is outlined in Supplementary Note 1. For jet flow at Re ≈ 78,000, we find, and eliminate, one recurrent global mode of period 0.72 ms.
One significant advantage of spatiotemporal jetflow data is that they can be used to perform a direct tests of the symmetries of \({{\bf{v}}}^{\prime}({\bf{R}};t)\) down to the scale of the lattice ( ~ 0.27 mm)^{16,22}. These velocity fluctuations are found to be both anisotropic and inhomogeneous. Specifically, the standard deviations of \({v}_{z}^{\prime}(r,z;t)\) and \({v}_{r}^{\prime}(r,z;t)\) decrease along the flow axis and are nearly constant in the radial direction except near the edge of the domain, where they decay. As shown in Supplementary Note 3, the corresponding turbulent intensity \({\mathcal{T}}\equiv \sigma [{v}_{z}^{\prime}]/{\bar{v}}_{z}\)^{14} is nearly constant along the z axis and increases from ~0.1 to ~0.6 in the radial direction.
Crosscorrelation coefficient
Incompressibility of the fluid, diffusion, as well as the presence of tubelike vortex structures^{23,24} induce correlations between velocity fluctuations at neighboring sites in turbulent flows. Among measures used for quantitative assessment are the timedelayed crosscorrelation coefficient
and the analogous quantities \({C}_{z}({\bf{R}},{{\bf{R}}}^{\prime};\tau )\) and \({C}_{r}({\bf{R}},{{\bf{R}}}^{\prime};\tau )\) for the axial and radial velocity components. Here \(\sigma \left[{{\bf{v}}}^{\prime}({\bf{R}})\right]\) is the standard deviation of the signal \({{\bf{v}}}^{\prime}({\bf{R}};t)\). Note that \(C\left({\bf{R}},{{\bf{R}}}^{\prime};\tau =0\right)\to 1\) as \( {{\bf{R}}}^{\prime}{\bf{R}} \to 0\). When Taylor’s frozen hypothesis^{7,13,14} is valid, \(C\left({\bf{R}},{{\bf{R}}}^{\prime};\tau \right)=1\) for sufficiently nearby points \({{\bf{R}}}^{\prime}\) downstream of R for \(\tau = {{\bf{R}}}^{\prime}{\bf{R}} /{\bar{v}}_{z}\). Its validity for inhomogeneous flows has been debated^{20,25}. In the absence of a theoretical framework, spatiotemporal data is indispensable to establish, if and how the hypothesis is modified for inhomogeneous flows. Analyses outlined below were conducted on recordings from four 15 ms intervals (i.e., 1500 snapshots) of the data; the error bars are standard deviations.
Figure 2 summarizes features of the crosscorrelation coefficient with R = 0 ≡ (0, 0) for jet flows at Re ≈ 78,000. Figure 2(a) shows three snapshots of \(C\left({\bf{0}},{{\bf{R}}}^{\prime};\tau \right)\), which is seen to contain a growing downstreamflowing peak. Denote the mean flow velocity at the n’th lattice site on the symmetry axis as \({\bar{v}}_{z}(n)\), which, as shown in Supplementary Note 3, is a decreasing function of n. The time t_{n} for a signal at the origin to reach the n’th lattice site is bounded by \(\mathop{\sum }\nolimits_{m = 1}^{n}\delta /{\bar{v}}_{z}(m) \, < \, {t}_{n} \, < \, \mathop{\sum }\nolimits_{m = 0}^{n1}\delta /{\bar{v}}_{z}(m)\), where δ = 0.268 mm is the lattice size. The bounds are indistinguishable, and the line (t_{n}, nδ) is shown in red in Fig. 2(b). The position of the peak, shown by blue diamonds in Fig. 2(b), flows at ~80% of this convection velocity^{26}, consistent with prior studies^{27,28,29,30}. (Deviations are found at offaxial sites as well, but with differing ratio of velocities.) The difference is most easily explained through Lagrangian flow; i.e., description from a frame comoving with the axial flow. As any velocity fluctuation diffuses to neighboring sites, where the flowvelocity is negative (since the velocity is highest on the symmetry axis), thus dragging the disturbance backward. The deviation of the peak velocity from the convection velocity is thus due to the inhomogeneity in mean flow, as given by the Tollmien solution^{18}.
A second modification to Taylor’s hypothesis, under which the peak intensity remains 1, is an exponential decay of the peak, see Fig. 2d. We propose that it originates from the reversal of velocity fluctuations required to maintain an average flow velocity at a site. The conjecture is motivated by a similar exponential decay (following transients) in the paradigmatic meanreversing stochastic dynamics, the Ornstein–Uhlenbeck process^{31}. Since mean reversal of velocity fluctuations is necessary to maintain the mean flow velocity at a location, it is a reasonable conjecture that the exponential decay of correlations will also hold for homogeneous flows, although experimental validation at small distances may be difficult. Figure 2c shows that the growth of the peakwidth is linear both in the flow direction and normal to it. Although differences in the velocity of the correlation peak and the convection velocity have been reported in prior studies^{13,25,32,33}, to the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first quantitative assessment of the decay of the peak in inhomogeneous flows.
Figure 2e shows an interesting observation. Due to the anisotropic growth rate and shape of the intense regions of \(C\left({\bf{0}},{{\bf{R}}}^{\prime};\tau \right)\), the peak along any direction within a cone is seen to be approximately independent of the direction. The four lines are the peak locations as a function of time in directions bearing angles θ = 0 (flow direction), \(\theta ={\tan }^{1}(1/6)=9.4{6}^{o}\), \(\theta ={\tan }^{1}(1/5)=11.3{1}^{o}\), and \(\theta ={\tan }^{1}(1/4)=14.0{4}^{o}\) to the flow direction, the lines being shifted for clarity. The slopes in all directions are nearly identical. (This directionindependence fails for smaller Reynolds numbers, see Supplementary Fig. 9e.) However, as seen from Fig. 2d, the decay in the peakintensity is not isotropic; it decreases faster as the deviation from the flow direction increases.
Spectral energy density
Velocity fluctuations in turbulent flows can be quantified via spectral components of the “energy field” \(E({\bf{R}})=\frac{1}{2}{\langle {\bf{v}}({\bf{R}},t)\cdot {\bf{v}}({\bf{R}},t)\rangle }_{t}\) of a unit mass of fluid^{4,5}. When E(R) is isotropic, dimensional considerations have been used to show that the spectral energy density scales as \(\hat{E}(k) \sim {k}^{5/3}\) in the inertial range^{4,5}. Due to lack of high resolution spatial data, most previous investigations used singlepoint velocity fluctuations and invoked Taylor’s frozen hypothesis to establish the behavior of the Fourier spectrum \(\hat{E}(\omega )\) of the time series^{16,34}. We wish to test for scaling of spectral energy in axisymmetric jet flow. Dimensional arguments analogous to those in refs. ^{4,5} show that the axial and radial components \({\hat{E}}_{z}\) and \({\hat{E}}_{r}\) of the spectral energy will scale as \({k}_{z}^{5/3}\) and \({k}_{r}^{5/3}\), respectively.
The spatiotemporal velocity fields permit a direct computation of E(R), which as seen from Fig. 3a, is not isotropic. Prior to computing the spectrum, we extend E(R) in both the z and the r directions so that the extended field is periodic. The Fourier transform is performed on this extended field with periodic boundary conditions in order to minimize spurious spectral components. The z extension is a reflection across z_{max}. In the r direction, a linear transformation is applied on each z row of E(R) so that the transformed field vanishes at the ends; it is then extended by reflection and multiplication by −1.
Since E(R) for the jet flow is anisotropic, it is necessary to analyze the behavior of the 2dimensional spectral energy density \(\hat{E}({k}_{r},{k}_{z})\). We find that \(\hat{E}({k}_{r},{k}_{z}=0)\) is several orders of magnitude smaller than \(\hat{E}({k}_{r}=0,{k}_{z})\). Figure 3b shows that the latter is consistent with the Kolmogorov–Obukhov^{4,5} law.
Structure functions
Highfrequency, highresolution velocity measurements aid in establishing several interesting statistical characterizations of pointwise and joint velocityfluctuations in turbulent flows. The results from our analyses, presented in Supplementary Note 3, can be summarized as follows: (a) Pointwise velocity fluctuations, both in the axial (\({v}_{z}^{\prime}\)) and normal (\({v}_{r}^{\prime}\)) directions, are nearly Gaussian distributed. Standard deviations in the axial and normal velocity fluctuations differ; specifically \(\sigma ({v}_{z}^{\prime})=25.59\pm 1.51\,m/s\) and \(\sigma ({v}_{r}^{\prime})=17.80\pm 0.51\,m/s\). Furthermore, \(\sigma ({v}_{z}^{\prime})\) exhibits a slow decay of ~5% over 17.7 mm in the downflow direction. These observations imply the inhomogeneity and anisotropy of \({{\bf{v}}}^{\prime}\). (b) As seen in Supplementary Fig. 4d, crosscorrelation between pointwise axial and normal velocity fluctuations increases to the right and decreases to the left of the symmetry axis. This observation indicates that velocity fluctuations are not randomly oriented; the onaxis correlation is ≲0.1. (Although the onaxis correlation should vanish by reflection symmetry, it is only approximately so for the <0.1 s duration of the experimental signal.) (c) As shown in Supplementary Note 4, distributions of pairwise velocity differences \(\delta {{\bf{v}}}^{\prime}\equiv {{\bf{v}}}^{\prime}({\bf{R}};t){{\bf{v}}}^{\prime}({{\bf{R}}}^{\prime};t)\) are multivariate Gaussian when the two points are far apart, but develop broader tails as points are brought close to each other. In particular, they are nearly biexponential at the smallest distances^{28,30}. This anomaly may originate from incompressibility and the presence of tubelike vortex structures^{23,24}. Figure 2a provides an alternative interpretation: as the peak of the crosscorrelation broadens, the strong correlation between velocity fluctuations at two neighboring sites with those at the origin at an earlier time implies the correlation of velocity fluctuations at the two points themselves.
Correlations between velocity fluctuations at neighboring sites can be characterized using the family of structure functions
where \({{\bf{e}}}_{\parallel }\equiv {{\bf{e}}}_{\parallel }({{\bf{R}}}^{\prime}{\bf{R}})\) is the unit vector in the direction \(({{\bf{R}}}^{\prime}{\bf{R}})\). Increasing ζ emphasizes larger deviations. We find that structure functions are homogeneous on the symmetry axis, i.e., do not depend on the “origin” R. Our computations of structure functions are implemented on a 60 ms (6000frame) segment of the flow. The error bars in Fig. 4 represent standard deviations for four different origins R on the symmetry axis.
Contour plot of \({S}_{1}\left({\bf{R}},{{\bf{R}}}^{\prime}\right)\), Fig. 4a, shows that it is nearly isotropic when \( {\bf{R}}{{\bf{R}}}^{\prime}\) is small, but that its growth slows in the flow direction with increasing \( {\bf{R}}{{\bf{R}}}^{\prime}\). Additional features of \({S}_{\zeta }\left({\bf{R}},{{\bf{R}}}^{\prime}\right)\) can be inferred from observations on the distributions of velocity fluctuations outlined earlier. They include (a) continuity of velocity fluctuations imply that \({S}_{\zeta }\left({\bf{R}},{{\bf{R}}}^{\prime}\right)\to 0\) as \( {\bf{R}}{{\bf{R}}}^{\prime} \to 0\). (b) Since the distribution of velocity fluctuations at R and \({{\bf{R}}}^{\prime}\) are multivariate normal and the \({{\bf{v}}}^{\prime}\)’s are independent when \( {\bf{R}}{{\bf{R}}}^{\prime} \to \infty\), the distribution of \({{\bf{v}}}^{\prime}({\bf{R}};t){{\bf{v}}}^{\prime}({{\bf{R}}}^{\prime};t)\) is multivariate normal with a variance–covariance matrix that is the sum of those for the two distributions. Since the variances of the distribution of axial velocity fluctuations are (nearly) constant within the entire domain, it is seen that \({S}_{2}\left({\bf{R}},{{\bf{R}}}^{\prime}\right)\to 1\) as \( {\bf{R}}{{\bf{R}}}^{\prime} \to \infty\). (c) In addition, \({S}_{\zeta }\left({\bf{R}},{{\bf{R}}}^{\prime}\right)\to const.\) as \( {\bf{R}}{{\bf{R}}}^{\prime} \to \infty\), the limiting value depending on ζ. Specifically, since \({\mathbb{E}}[ X{ }^{\zeta }]=\frac{{2}^{\zeta /2}}{\sqrt{\pi }}\,{{\Gamma }}\left(\frac{\zeta +1}{2}\right){\sigma }^{\zeta }\) for a centered normal distribution of standard deviation σ, it can be shown that \({S}_{\zeta }\left({\bf{R}},{{\bf{R}}}^{\prime}\right)\to {2}^{\zeta /21}\) as \( {\bf{R}}{{\bf{R}}}^{\prime} \to \infty\).
Figure 4b, c shows the behavior of structure functions in the flow direction. Black diamonds in Fig. 4b are the values of S_{1}(z), with \(z= {\bf{R}}{{\bf{R}}}^{\prime}\). Consistent with the limits for z → 0 and z → ∞, we use a 3parameter fit \({S}_{1}(z)={c}_{1}{z}^{{c}_{3}}/(1+{c}_{2}{z}^{{c}_{3}})\); the best fit is shown by the black line in Fig. 4b. The blue, red, green, and brown symbols in Fig. 4b represent S_{1/2}(z), S_{2}(z), S_{3}(z), and S_{4}(z), respectively. Next, given S_{ζ}(z) → 2^{ζ/2−1} when z → ∞, we inquire if S_{ζ}(z) will be a power of S_{1}(z). The conjecture is tested using the “normalized” structure function
The symbols in Fig. 4c, \({\mathbb{N}}{{\rm{S}}}_{1/2}(z)\), \({\mathbb{N}}{{\rm{S}}}_{2}(z)\), \({\mathbb{N}}{{\rm{S}}}_{3}(z)\), and \({\mathbb{N}}{{\rm{S}}}_{4}(z)\), illustrate that a powerrelationship does hold for large z, the limiting value being consistent with \({\mathbb{N}}{{\rm{S}}}_{\zeta }(z)={2}^{\zeta 1}\) (thin solid lines), except at the largest ζ. This is an example of extended selfsimilarity^{17,35}; it motivates us to inquire how well S_{ζ}(z) is approximated by 2^{ζ−1}S_{1}(z)^{ζ} in the entire range. The blue, red, green, and brown lines in Fig. 4b show that the approximation does hold over the entire domain, but weakens as ζ increases. It is shown in Supplementary Note 5 that (a) the discrepancy at large z can be attributed to small correlations and differences in pointwise standard deviations, and (b) the behavior for small z can be found using the near biexponential form of the distribution of velocity differentials.
The wellknown Kolmogorov “\(\frac{2}{3}\)law” states that for highly turbulent homogeneous and isotropic flows, there is an inertial range, terminating at the Taylor microscale, where \({S}_{2}\left({\bf{R}},{{\bf{R}}}^{\prime}\right)\) is isotropic and scales like \( {{\bf{R}}}^{\prime}{\bf{R}}{ }^{2/3}\)^{2,3}, and that higherorder structure functions scale as \({S}_{\zeta }\left({\bf{R}},{{\bf{R}}}^{\prime}\right) \sim  {{\bf{R}}}^{\prime}{\bf{R}}{ }^{\zeta /3}\). Experimental evidence for these claims, many of which are based on Taylor’s frozen hypothesis, have not been conclusive. For example, while several studies appear to affirm isotropy of structure functions^{36,37}, others report anisotropy^{38,39}. An inertial range is not observed in some studies on turbulent flows^{30} and simulations^{17}, while it is found in others^{9,40,41}.
With highresolution spatiotemporal flow fields, we are in a position to perform direct and indirect (i.e., based on Taylor’s frozen hypothesis) tests of Kolmogorov scaling in the anisotropic and inhomogeneous jet flow. Due to experimental noise and limitations on resolution, estimations of higher order moments are not reliable. The symbols in Fig. 4d show \({S}_{2}(z,{z}^{\prime})\) and the line through them the best fit to a functional form \({S}_{2}(z)={c}_{1}{z}^{{c}_{3}}/(1+{c}_{2}{z}^{{c}_{3}})\); the dashed line is the \(\frac{2}{3}\)law. No inertial range is found for our data. Transverse structure functions exhibit similar features, as summarized in Supplementary Note 6 and Supplementary Figs. 7 and 8.
It has been conjectured that inhomogeneity and anisotropy induces deviations from a single scaling index^{9}, and that structure functions scale only within irreducible sectors of the SO(3) symmetry group^{10,42,43,44}. The axisymmetric jet flows reported here show no scaling even within irreducible sectors.
Next, we inquire if use of Taylor’s frozen hypothesis can contribute to experimental observations of an inertial range^{9,40,41}. Under the scenario, single point velocity measurements at a location R = (0, z) on the symmetry axis can be used to evaluate the structure function in the flowdirection via
In Fig. 4e, we show the form of the structure function at three locations as a function of the effective distance \({\bar{v}}_{z} {t}^{\prime}t\), where \({\bar{v}}_{z}\) is the mean flow velocity at R. Since the time interval between observations is 0.01 ms and the fluid speed in the flow direction is ~130 m/s, the smallest effective distance accessible from the data is ≈1.3 mm; given that the Taylor microscale is ≈165 μm, we are unable to access the lower distances in the inertial scale. An inertial range cannot be observed, but \({S}_{2}^{{\rm{Tay}}}(t,{t}^{\prime})\) shows a closer agreement to the \(\frac{2}{3}\)law than \({S}_{2}\left({\bf{R}},{{\bf{R}}}^{\prime}\right)\).
Conclusions
A signature of turbulent flows is rapid chaotic variations in flow velocities, and the flows are characterized through statistical objects of their fluctuations. Theoretical analysis of these objects are based primarily on energy transmission between scales, leading to the Kolmogorov \(\frac{2}{3}\)law and the Kolmogorov–Obhukov \(\frac{5}{3}\)law. Reynolds numbers where these laws are predicted to hold are extremely high, and the flows contain structures down to very small scales. A major challenge for experimental tests of the scaling laws is measurements of flow fields at sufficiently high frequency and spatial resolution. Studies of homogeneous turbulence has been predicated on the use of Taylor’s frozen hypothesis which permits the inference of the relevant spatial variations via the use of highfrequency single or multipoint measurements. Whether these inferences generalize to the more common inhomogeneous flows was the issue that motivated the present study.
The acquisition of highresolution spatiotemporal velocity fields was made through a longduration (100ms), highenergy burstmode laser, permitting their extraction at a frequency of 100 kHz^{15}. This rate of measurements permitted the study of axisymmetric jet flows up to Reynolds numbers ~80,000. We showed explicitly that both the mean flow and velocity fluctuations in these flows are inhomogeneous and anisotropic. One of our inquiries was if and how Taylor’s hypothesis is altered. We found that the peak in the autocorrelation function flows at a rate that differs from the convection velocity and attributed it to nonuniformity of the mean flow. The peak correlation was found to decay exponentially in time. We argued that the observation can be attributed to meanreversal of velocity fluctuations, which suggests that such a decay will persist in homogeneous flows as well, even at short distances. Next we used the flow fields to test if scaling of structure functions^{4,5} and spectral energy density will continue in inhomogeneous flows. Even though extended selfsimilarity^{17,35} holds except at small distances, we failed to find an inertial range where the Kolmogorov \(\frac{2}{3}\)law^{3} holds. The decay of the axial component of the spectral energy density is consistent with the Kolmogorov–Obukhov law^{4,5}.
Methods
The N_{2}jet, inserted through a cylindrical inlet of diameter 4.7 mm with a flow rate set by a mass flow controller (Alicat, MCR), expands axisymmetrically into ambient stagnant air. The 2D velocity measurements are made on a grid inside the boundary of the expanding jet. Reynold’s numbers at the inlet for our experiments range from 21,000–78,000 (see Supplementary Note 7).
Velocity measurements are made using highspeed timeresolved PIV, whose acquisition rates in our system are limited primarily by repetition rates of laser sources and infrared camera memory. Wth an extendedduration dualpulse burstmode laser^{16} we are able to acquire the flow field measurements at 100 kHz over a duration of 0.1 s. The flow field was visualized using DEHS particles of diameter 0.25 μm. Under these conditions the motion of the particles is passive^{16}, and thus their flow will represent that of the fluid faithfully. The PIV resolution was made for each condition using the standard interpretation^{22}, requiring the vector correlation size (537 μm), laser sheet thickness (500 μm), and time resolution between correlated images (2 μs). For conditions analyzed, the spatial resolution varies from 266 μm to 277 μm. Ref. ^{16} provides a detailed analysis of particle motion and rigorous definitions of spatial and temporal resolution. For all cases, a standard definition of resolution was used, i.e., the Taylor microscale wavevector at which the correction ratio of the squared spectral filtering function fell to 0.7. This can be interpreted as the point at which corrections of less than 30% are required to the spectral density tensor, in agreement with the standard work of Lavoie^{22}. However, if a more stringent definition is applied (e.g., corrections less than 10%), then the effective spatial resolution would decrease.
The integral length scale was estimated as the product of the mean convective velocity and the measured integral time scale^{45}. The timescale was measured using the exponential decay of the temporal autocorrelation function^{45}; the lengthscale Λ was expressed in terms of the turbulence intensity (estimated from the standard deviation σ_{1} in the axial direction) and the dissipation rate ε was estimated using \({{\Lambda }}\approx {\sigma }_{1}^{3}/\varepsilon\)^{46}. The Taylor microscale was estimated by substituting this expression, yielding \(\lambda \approx \sqrt{15\nu {{\Lambda }}/{\sigma }_{1}}\), and is a function of derived and measurable axial quantities in the experiment: kinematic viscosity ν, Λ, and σ_{1}. The Kolmogorov scale was estimated using the approximation \(\eta \approx {({\nu }^{3}{{\Lambda }}/{\sigma }_{1}^{3})}^{1/4}\)^{46}. Further details of these calculations can be found in ref. ^{45}.
The velocity measurements are made on a 67 × 51 grid placed symmetrically on an axial crosssection, as illustrated schematically in Fig. 1a. There were a very few instances (~0.01%) where both the recorded axial and radial speeds vanish, indicating that the site was not seeded. (We find no cases where only one component vanishes.) Each such recording is replaced by the mean of the corresponding velocities at the same location in the time steps immediately preceding and following the instance.
Data availability
The spatiotemporal flow velocity data that support the findings of this study, in Matlab format, have been deposited in “figshare.com”, with the accession code “10.6084/m9.figshare. 12789926.” Grid points x and y of the 51 × 67 lattice and the velocity fields u(x, y, t) and v(x, y, t) in the x and y directions are given for jet flows at Reynolds numbers 21,000, 26,200, 31,500, 47,200 62,300, and 77,900.
Code availability
Computer codes used to analyze the data will be provided upon request.
References
Reynolds, O. On the dynamical theory of incompressible viscous fluids and the determination of the criterion. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 186, 123–161 (1894).
Monin, A. S. & Yaglom, A. M. Statistical Fluid Mechanics, Mechanics of Turbulence Vol. I (Dover Publications, Inc., 1971).
Kolmogorov, A. N. Local structure of turbulence in an incompressible fluid at very high Reynolds numbers. Dokl. Akad. Naud. SSSR 30, 299–303 (1941).
Kolmogorov, A. N. Energy dissipation in locally isotropic turbulence. Dokl. Akad. Naud. SSSR 32, 19–21 (1941).
Obukhov, A. M. Energy distribution in the spectrum of a turbulent flow. Izvestiya Akad. Nauk. SSSR, Ser. Geogr. Geofiz. 45, 453–466 (1941).
Richardson, L. F. Weather Prediction by Numerical Processes (Cambridge University Press, 1922).
Taylor, G. I. The spectrum of turbulence. Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 164, 476 (1938).
Saddoughi, S. G. & Veeravalli, S. V. Local isotropy in turbulent boundary layers at high Reynold’s number. J. Fluid Mech. 268, 333–372 (1994).
Anselmet, F., Gagne, Y., Hopfinger, E. J. & Antonia, R. Highorder velocity structure functions in turbulent shear flows. J. Fluid Mech. 140, 63–89 (1984).
Biferale, L. & Procaccia, I. Anisotropy in turbulent flows and in turbulent transport. Phys. Rep. 414, 43–164 (2005).
Procaccia, I. & Sreenivasan, K. R. The state of the art in hydrodynamic turbulence: past successes and future challenges. Phys. DNonlinear Phenom. 237, 2167–2183 (2008).
Sreenivasan, K. R. & Druva, B. Is there scaling in highReynoldsnumber turbulence? Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 130, 103–120 (1998).
Lv́ov, V. S., Pomyalov, A. & Procaccia, I. Temporal surrogates of spatiotemporal turbulent statistics: the Taylor hypothesis revisited. Phys. Rev. E 60, 4175–4184 (1999).
Belmonte, A., Martin, B. & Goldburg, W. I. Experimental study of Taylor’s hypothesis in a turbulent soap film. Phys. Fluids 12, 835–845 (2000).
Slipchenko, M. et al. 100kHz, 100ms, 400J burstmode laser with dualwavelength diodepumped amplifiers. Opt. Lett. 39, 4735–4738 (2014).
Miller, J. D. et al. Spatiotemporal analysis of turbulent jets enabled by 100kHz, 100ms burstmode particle image velocimetry. Exp. Fluids 57, 192 (2016).
Benzi, R. et al. Extended selfsimilarity in turbulent flows. Phys. Rev. E 48, R29–R32 (1993).
Tollmien, W. Berechnung turbulenter ausbreitungsvorgänge. Zs. Angew. Math. Mech. 6, 468–478 (1926).
Rajaratnam, N. Turbulent Jets (Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company, 1976).
Frisch, U. Turbulence: the Legacy of A. N. Kolmogorov (Cambridge University Press, 1995).
Hua, J.C., Gunaratne, G. H., Talley, D. G., Gord, J. R. & Roy, S. Dynamicmode decomposition based analysis of shear coaxial jets with and without transverse acoustic driving. J. Fluid Mech. 790, 5–32 (2016).
Lavoie, P., Avallone, G., De Gregorio, F., Romano, G. P. & Antonia, R. A. Spatial resolution of PIV for the measurement of turbulence. Exp. Fluids 43, 39–51 (2007).
Siggia, E. Numerical study of smallscale intermittency in 3dimensional turbulence. J. Fluid Mech. 107, 375–406 (1981).
She, Z. S., Jackson, E. & Orzag, S. Intermittent vortex structures in homogeneous isotropic turbulence. Nature 344, 226–228 (1990).
Zaman, K. B. M. Q. & Hussain, A. K. M. F. Taylor hypothesis and largescale coherent structures. J. Fluid Mech. 112, 379–396 (1981).
Townsend, A. A. The Structure of Turbulent Shear Flows 2nd edn (Cambridge University Press, 1976).
Koeltzsch, K. On the relationship between Lagrangian and Eulerian time scale. Atmos. Environ. 33, 117–128 (2005).
Burghelea, T., Segre, E. & Steinberg, V. Validity of the Taylor hypothesis in a random spatially smooth flow. Phys. Fluids 17, 103101 (2005).
Del Alamo, J. C. & Jiménez, J. Estimation of turbulent convection velocities and corrections to Taylor’s approximation. J. Fluid Mech. 640, 5–26 (2009).
Lewis, G. S. & Swinney, H. L. Velocity structure functions, scaling, and transitions in highReynoldsnumber CouetteTaylor flow. Phys. Rev. E 59, 5457–5467 (1999).
Uhlenbeck, G. E. & Ornstein, L. S. On the theory of Brownian motion. Phys. Rev. 36, 823–841 (1930).
Dahm, W. J. A. & Southerland, K. B. Experimental assessment of Taylor’s hypothesis and its applications to dissipation estimates in turbulent flows. Phys. Fluids 9, 2101–2117 (1997).
MesbahUddin, A. K., Perry, A. E. & Marusic, I. On the validity of Taylor’s hypothesis in wall turbulence. J. Mech. Eng. Res. Dev. 1920, 57–66 (1997).
Tabeling, P., Zocchi, G., Belin, F., Maurer, J. & Willaime, H. Probability density functions, skewness, and flatness in large Reynold’s number turbulence. Phys. Rev. E 53, 1613–1621 (1996).
Ciliberto, S. Turbulence Vol. 341 (NATO ASI Series (Series B: Physics), 1995).
Cammusi, R., Barbagallo, D., Guj, R. & Stella, F. Transverse and longitudinal scaling laws in nonhomogeneous low Re turbulence. Phys. Fluids 8, 1181–1191 (1996).
A, N., G, W., Lempert, W., Miles, R. B. & Frisch, U. Transverse velocity measurements in turbulent flows using RELIEF technique. Phys. Fluid Mech. 339, 287–307 (1997).
Cammusi, R. & Benzi, R. Hierarchy of transverse structure functions. Phys. Fluids 9, 257–259 (1997).
Chen, S., Sreenivasan, K., Nelkin, M. & Cao, N. Z. Refined similarity hypothesis for transverse structure functions in fluid turbulence. Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 2253–2256 (1997).
Arneodo, A. et al. Structure functions in turbulence in various flow configurations at Reynolds numbers between 30 and 5000. Europhys. Lett. 34, 411–416 (1996).
Saw, E.W., Debue, P., Kuzzay, D., Daviaud, F. & Dubrulle, B. On the universality of anomalous scaling exponents of structure functions in turbulent flows. J. Fluid Mech. 837, 657–669 (2018).
Arad, I., L’vov, V. S. & Procaccia, I. Anomalous scaling in anisotropic turbulence. Physica A 288, 280–307 (2000).
Kurien, S., L’vov, V. S., Procaccia, I. & Sreenivasan, K. R. Scaling structure of the velocity statistics in atmospheric boundary layers. Phys. Rev. E 61, 407–421 (2000).
Kurien, S. & Sreenivasan, K. R. Anisotropic scaling contributions to highorder structure functions in highReynoldsnumber turbulence. Phys. Rev. E 62, 2206–2212 (2000).
Miller, J. D. et al. 100 kHz burstmode particle image velocimetry: spacetime correlations and considerations for spatial and temporal resolution. Turbulence 1–12 (2016).
Pope, S. B. Turbulent Flows (Cambridge University Press, 2000).
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the Air Force Research Laboratory under Contract No. FA865015D2518. This manuscript is approved for public release by the Air Force Research Laboratory (88ABW20201243).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
The authors contributed equally. S.R. and J.D.M. conducted the experiment and G.H.G. performed the data analysis. S.R. and G.H.G. wrote the paper.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Roy, S., Miller, J.D. & Gunaratne, G.H. Deviations from Taylor’s frozen hypothesis and scaling laws in inhomogeneous jet flows. Commun Phys 4, 32 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42005021005280
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s42005021005280
This article is cited by

Ultrahighspeed timeresolved PIV of turbulent flows using a continuously pulsing fiber laser
Experiments in Fluids (2022)

ChronosKoopman spectral analysis of bidimensional turbulent flows
Experiments in Fluids (2022)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.