4.7 Article

The impact of swirl and wake strength on turbulent axisymmetric wake evolution

期刊

PHYSICS OF FLUIDS
卷 34, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

AIP Publishing
DOI: 10.1063/5.0094593

关键词

-

资金

  1. U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, Basic Energy Sciences
  2. [DE-SC0012671]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This experimental investigation examines the influence of swirl and wake strength on the evolution of axisymmetric turbulent wake. The results show that an increase in swirl strength leads to an increase in the growth and decay rate constants of the wake, while changes in wake strength have little impact on these rates.
An experimental investigation of swirl and wake strength influence on axisymmetric turbulent wake evolution was conducted. A novel wake generator design wire mounted in a wind tunnel test section with low free-stream turbulence produced wake Reynolds numbers based on momentum thickness and free-stream velocity in excess of 14 000 and swirl numbers up to 0.4 with minimal blockage. Steady-state blade element momentum simulations of reference wind turbine designs indicated that wind turbines operate in the flow regimes studied, indicating the practical aspects of this work. Stereoscopic particle image velocimetry was used to acquire three components of velocity in the swirling wake at locations up to approximately ten diameters downstream. Quantitative measures of wake growth and decay were deduced using available equilibrium similarity scaling for the swirling wake. The results show an increase above 50% in growth and axial velocity decay rate constants over the range of swirl strength studied compared to those of the non-swirling wake. Tangential velocity decay constants were shown to decrease with swirl strength over the range of conditions studied. Notably, changes in wake strength have little influence on growth and decay rates when compared to changes in swirl strength for the flow regimes studied in this work. Published under an exclusive license by AIP Publishing.

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