4.5 Article Proceedings Paper

Three-Dimensional Effects on Plunging Airfoils at Low Reynolds Numbers

期刊

AIAA JOURNAL
卷 59, 期 1, 页码 65-74

出版社

AMER INST AERONAUTICS ASTRONAUTICS
DOI: 10.2514/1.J058569

关键词

-

资金

  1. State Research Agency of Spain (AEI) [DPI2016-76151-C2-2-R]
  2. European Regional Development Fund (ERDF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Through simulations of large-amplitude plunging maneuvers at different velocity ratios, it was found that the force coefficients follow a similar trend with the main peak amplitude linearly increasing with the velocity ratio. The Reynolds number and three-dimensionality significantly affect the maximum value of the lift coefficient at the end of the maneuver and its subsequent transient decay.
We present two-dimensional and three-dimensional (3-D) direct numerical simulations of large-amplitude plunging maneuvers at Reynolds numbers of Re=1000 and 5000, with velocity ratios of G=0.5, 1, and 2. For all cases, the evolution of the force coefficients is qualitatively similar. The lift coefficient presents a pronounced peak toward the end of the acceleration phase of the maneuver, a local minimum in the deceleration phase, and a second peak at the end of the maneuver. The amplitude of the main peak increases linearly with G, with limited effect of the Reynolds number and a negligible effect of the three-dimensionality of the flow. On the other hand, both the Reynolds number and three-dimensionality have a stronger effect on the amplitude of the maximum value of the lift coefficient at the end of the maneuver, as well as on the subsequent transient decay toward the static values. The comparison of the evolution of the flow structures near the airfoil shows that these differences in the force coefficients are due to subtle interactions between the various vortices generated during the maneuver, as well as to the development of a 3-D boundary layer on the suction side of the airfoil triggered by the instability of the trailing-edge vortices.

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

4.5
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