4.7 Article

Direct numerical simulation of sharkskin denticles in turbulent channel flow

期刊

PHYSICS OF FLUIDS
卷 28, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

AMER INST PHYSICS
DOI: 10.1063/1.4942474

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Energy and Sandia National Laboratories

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The hydrodynamic function of sharkskin has been under investigation for the past 30 years. Current literature conflicts on whether sharkskin is able to reduce skin friction similar to riblets. To contribute insights toward reconciling these conflicting views, direct numerical simulations are carried out to obtain detailed flow fields around realistic denticles. A sharp interface immersed boundary method is employed to simulate two arrangements of actual sharkskin denticles (from Isurus oxyrinchus) in a turbulent boundary layer at Re-t approximate to 180. For comparison, turbulent flow over drag-reducing scalloped riblets is also simulated with similar flow conditions and with the same numerical method. Although the denticles resemble riblets, both sharkskin arrangements increase total drag by 44%-50%, while the riblets reduce drag by 5%. Analysis of the simulated flow fields shows that the turbulent flow around denticles is highly three-dimensional and separated, with 25% of the total drag being form drag. The complex three-dimensional shape of the denticles gives rise to a mean flow dominated by strong secondary flows in sharp contrast with the mean flow generated by riblets, which is largely two-dimensional. The so resulting three-dimensionality of sharkskin flows leads to an increase in the magnitude of the turbulent statistics near the denticles, which further contributes to increasing the total drag. The simulations also show that, at least for the simulated arrangements, sharkskin, in sharp contrast with drag-reducing riblets, is unable to isolate high shear stress near denticle ridges causing a significant portion of the denticle surface to be exposed to high mean shear. (C) 2016 AIP Publishing LLC.

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