4.5 Article

Investigation of a Near-Field Cylinder Wake in the Subsonic, Transonic, and Supersonic Regimes

期刊

AIAA JOURNAL
卷 -, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

AMER INST AERONAUTICS ASTRONAUTICS
DOI: 10.2514/1.J063163

关键词

Reynolds Number; Karman Vortex Street; Flow Conditions; Outer Flow Velocity; Turbulence Intensity; Shear Flow; Supersonic Flow; Particle Image Velocimetry; Transonic Flow; Subsonic Flow

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The near wake of a circular cylinder in a high-Reynolds-number regime was investigated using particle image velocimetry. The study found that the mean wake features for subsonic and supersonic cases are very different, and the variation in observed wake width is due to the differing paths of eddies.
The near wake of a circular cylinder in a high-Reynolds-number regime is investigated using the particle image velocimetry technique for an inflow Mach number spanning 0.3 to 2. The mean flow and turbulent kinetic energy field for different Mach number cases are presented. Furthermore, the influence of the Reynolds and Mach number effects is examined based on the mean separation point along the cylinder surface, which is extracted from complementary schlieren visualization measurements, and the literature. The wake width for the supersonic inflow case is found to be an order of magnitude smaller physically than the subsonic case with an identical cylinder diameter. Additionally, the swirl strength criterion is used to identify the eddies present within the wake, and the eddy size and convection velocity are characterized based on the spatiotemporal correlations. The result suggests that the mean wake features for the subsonic and supersonic cases are very different. Moreover, the interaction of eddies generated at the cylinder's top and bottom shear layers leads to the large-scale features present in the wake, and the differing paths followed by the eddies between the subsonic and supersonic cases are responsible for the variation in the observed wake width.

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