4.7 Article

Three-dimensional vortex breakdown in swirling jets and wakes: direct numerical simulation

期刊

JOURNAL OF FLUID MECHANICS
卷 486, 期 -, 页码 331-378

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0022112003004749

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Vortex breakdown of nominally axisymmetric, swirling incompressible flows with jet-and wake-like axial velocity distributions issuing into a semi-infinite domain is studied by means of direct numerical simulations. By selecting a two-parametric velocity profile for which the steady axisymmetric breakdown is well-studied (Grabowski & Berger 1976), issues are addressed regarding the role of three-dimensionality and unsteadiness with respect to the existence, mode selection, and internal structure of vortex breakdown, in terms of the two governing parameters and the Reynolds number. Low Reynolds numbers are found to yield flow fields lacking breakdown bubbles or helical breakdown modes even for high swirl. In contrast, highly swirling flows at large Reynolds numbers exhibit bubble, helical or double-helical breakdown modes, where the axisymmetric mode is promoted by a jet-like axial velocity profile, while a wake-like profile renders the flow helically unstable and ultimately yields non-axisymmetric breakdown modes. It is shown that a transition from super- to subcritical flow, as defined by Benjamin (1962), accurately predicts the parameter combination yielding breakdown, if applied locally to flows with supercritical inflow profiles. Thus the basic form of breakdown is axisymmetric, and a transition to helical breakdown modes is shown to be caused by a sufficiently large pocket of absolute instability in the wake of the bubble, giving rise to a self-excited global mode. Two distinct, eigenfunctions corresponding to azimuthal wavenumbers m = -1 and m = -2 have been found to yield a helical or double-helical breakdown mode, respectively. Here the minus sign represents the fact that the winding sense of the spiral is opposite to that of the 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