4.7 Article

Pulsatile flow in stenotic geometries: flow behaviour and stability

期刊

JOURNAL OF FLUID MECHANICS
卷 622, 期 -, 页码 291-320

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0022112008005338

关键词

-

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [DP0555897]
  2. ARC Linkage International [LX0668992]
  3. Embassy of France in Australia
  4. Monash Research Graduate School
  5. Australian Research Council [LX0668992, DP0555897] Funding Source: Australian Research Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Pulsatile inlet flow through a circular tube with an axisymmetric blockage of varying size is studied both numerically and experimentally. The geometry consists of a long, straight tube and a blockage, semicircular in cross-section, serving as a simplified model of an arterial stenosis. The stenosis is characterized by a single parameter, the aim being to highlight fundamental behaviours of constricted pulsatile flows. The Reynolds number is varied between 50 and 700 and the stenosis degree by area between 0.20 and 0.90. Numerically, a spectral element code is used to obtain the axisymmetric base flow fields, while experimentally, results are obtained for a similar set of geometries, using water as the working fluid. For low Reynolds numbers, the flow is characterized by a vortex ring which Forms directly downstream of the stenosis, for which the strength and downstream propagation velocity vary with the stenosis degree. Linear stability analysis is performed on the simulated axisymmetric base flows, revealing a range of absolute instability modes. Comparisons are drawn between the numerical linear stability analysis and the observed instability in the experimental flows. The observed flows are less stable than the numerical analysis predicts, with convective shear layer instability present in the experimental flows. Evidence is found of Kelvin-Helmholtz-type shear layer roll-ups; nonetheless, the possibility of the numerically predicted absolute instability modes acting in the experimental flow is left open.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据