4.7 Article

Comparing steady and unsteady rectangular jets issuing into a crossflow

期刊

JOURNAL OF FLUID MECHANICS
卷 942, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/jfm.2022.413

关键词

jets

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The foundational differences between steady and unsteady jets issued into a laminar boundary layer crossflow are investigated. Experimental results show that the coherent streamwise vortices produced by unsteady jets are stronger than those produced by steady jets, despite similar flow patterns. The differences in jet behavior are rooted in how vorticity is generated, either through a Stokes layer or a Blasius boundary layer. Furthermore, it is found that unsteady jets introduce greater added momentum and vorticity compared to steady jets.
The foundational differences of steady and unsteady jets issued into a laminar boundary layer crossflow are considered. Jets have been used widely for flow control applications, due to their ability to enhance mixing and mitigate separation, but it is unclear what role jet steadiness plays in flow control effectiveness. Here we compare experimentally unsteady (synthetic) and steady rectangular jets issued into a flat-plate laminar boundary layer with varying orifice pitch and skew. The coherent streamwise vortices produced by unsteady jets were shown to be much stronger than those produced by steady jets, despite producing similar flow patterns. These differences are rooted in how vorticity is generated in the orifice, through either a Stokes layer (unsteady) or a Blasius boundary layer (steady). Exploring the time- and phase-averaged vorticity transport equation reveals that the time-varying vorticity term is the reason for the enhanced vortical structure. When considering flow control metrics, we find that the unsteady jet produced greater added momentum in the boundary layer and added vorticity when compared to a momentum-matched steady jet. Both the steady and unsteady jets produced similar jet penetration characteristics.

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