4.5 Article

Wind tunnel study of separated and reattaching flows by particle image velocimetry and pressure measurements

Journal

ADVANCES IN STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
Volume 22, Issue 7, Pages 1769-1782

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/1369433218824918

Keywords

bluff body aerodynamics; particle image velocimetry; pressure measurements; separation and reattachment; turbulent flows; wind tunnel test

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51478405]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article presents a comprehensive investigation on the separated and reattaching flows over a blunt flat plate with different leading-edge shapes by means of particle image velocimetry and surface pressure measurements. Wind tunnel tests are performed in both smooth and various turbulent flow conditions, and the separated and reattaching flows are examined as a function of Reynolds number (Re), leading-edge shape, turbulence intensity, and turbulence integral length scale. It is shown through the particle image velocimetry and pressure measurements that the Reynolds number effect is significant regarding the mean vorticity field, but with little effect on the mean velocity field. For the effects of leading-edge shape, the distributions of pressure coefficients respond strongly to the change in leading-edge angle, and both the velocity (streamwise and vertical) and vorticity fields have a clear dependence on the leading-edge shape. For the effects of freestream turbulence, the mean pressure coefficient responds strongly to turbulence intensity, whereas the fluctuating and peak suction pressure coefficients are dependent on both turbulence intensity and integral length scale. The size of the separation bubble contracts aggressively with increasing turbulence intensity, but it remains approximately invariant in response to the change in turbulence scale in the tested range.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available