4.7 Article

Vortex ring formation process in starting jets with uniform background co- and counter-flow

期刊

JOURNAL OF FLUID MECHANICS
卷 968, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/jfm.2023.586

关键词

jets; vortex shedding

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The formation process of the leading vortex ring in starting jets with uniform background co- and counter-flow has been studied numerically. For counter-flow, the normal formation process of the leading vortex ring would be destroyed at lower velocity ratios. An analytical model based on the kinematic criterion has been developed to describe the relationship between the formation number and velocity ratio. Different equations are proposed for the co-flow and counter-flow cases.
The formation process of the leading vortex ring in starting jets with uniform background co- and counter-flow has been studied numerically for -0.5 <= R-v <= 0.5, where R-v is the ratio of background velocity to jet velocity. For the cases with background counter-flow, the normal formation process of the leading vortex ring would be destroyed when R-v<-0.4, i.e. the trailing jet would overtake the leading vortex ring through the centre, a phenomenon reminiscent of vortex leapfrogging. As the velocity ratio R-v increases, the formation number F-t* decreases from 9.6 at R-v=-0.4 to 1.92 at R-v=0.5. An analytical model based on the kinematic criterion has been developed so as to describe the relationship between the formation number F-t* and velocity ratio R-v. A linear relationship between the vortex core parameter and stroke ratio of starting jet (epsilon k(1)L/D) for the Norbury vortex ring has been established and used effectively to close the model. For co-flow with 0<= 0.5, the results from this model are consistent with the present numerical simulation and the experiments by Krueger et al. (J. Fluid Mech., vol. 556, 2006, pp. 147-166). For counter-flow, two different equations are proposed for -0.4 <= R-v <=-0.2 and -0.2<0, respectively.

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