4.7 Article

Population trends of spanwise vortices in wall turbulence

期刊

JOURNAL OF FLUID MECHANICS
卷 568, 期 -, 页码 55-76

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S002211200600259X

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The present effort documents the population trends of prograde and retrograde spanwise vortex cores in wall turbulence outside the buffer layer. Large ensembles of instantaneous velocity fields are acquired by particle-image velocimetry in the streamwise-wall-normal plane of both turbulent channel flow at Re-tau equivalent to u(*)delta/v = 570, 1185 and 1760 and a zero-pressure-gradient turbulent boundary layer at Re, = 1400, 2350 and 3450. Substantial numbers of prograde spanwise vortices are found to populate the inner boundary of the log layer of both flows and most of these vortices have structural signatures consistent with the heads of hairpin vortices. In contrast retrograde vortices are most prominent at the outer edge of the log layer, often nesting near clusters of prograde vortices. Appropriate Reynolds-number scalings for outer- and inner-scaled population densities of prograde and retrograde vortices are determined. However, the Re, = 570 channel-flow case deviates from these scalings, indicating that it suffers from low-Re effects. When the population densities are recast in terms of fractions of resolved prograde and retrograde spanwise vortices, similarity is observed for 100 < y(+) < 0.8 delta(+) in channel flow and in both flows for 100 < y(+) < 0.3 delta(+) over the Re, range studied. The fraction of retrograde vortices increases slightly with Re, beyond the log layer in both flows, suggesting that they may play an increasingly important role at higher Reynolds numbers. Finally, while the overall prograde and retrograde population trends of channel flow and the boundary layer show little difference for y < 0.45 delta, the retrograde populations differ considerably beyond this point, highlighting the influence of the opposing wall in channel flow.

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