4.7 Article

Energy-consistent entrainment relations for jets and plumes

期刊

JOURNAL OF FLUID MECHANICS
卷 782, 期 -, 页码 333-355

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/jfm.2015.534

关键词

free shear layers; wakes/jets; plumes/thermals

资金

  1. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) [EP/J500239/1]
  2. Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [1116239] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We discuss energetic restrictions on the entrainment coefficient a for axisymmetric jets and plumes. The resulting entrainment relation includes contributions from the mean flow, turbulence and pressure, fundamentally linking alpha to the production of turbulence kinetic energy, the plume Richardson number Ri and the profile coefficients associated with the shape of the buoyancy and velocity profiles. This entrainment relation generalises the work by Kaminski et al. (J. Fluid Mech., vol. 526, 2005, pp. 361-376) and Fox (J. Geophys. Res., vol. 75, 1970, pp. 6818-6835). The energetic viewpoint provides a unified framework with which to analyse the classical entrainment models implied by the plume theories of Morton et al. (Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A, vol. 234, 1955, pp. 1-23) and Priestley & Ball (Q. J. R. Meteorol. Soc., vol. 81, 1954, pp. 144-157). Data for pure jets and plumes in unstratified environments indicate that to first order the physics is captured by the Priestley and Ball entrainment model, implying that (1) the profile coefficient associated with the production of turbulence kinetic energy has approximately the same value for pure plumes and jets, (2) the value of a for a pure plume is roughly a factor of 5/3 larger than for a jet and (3) the enhanced entrainment coefficient in plumes is primarily associated with the behaviour of the mean flow and not with buoyancy-enhanced turbulence. Theoretical suggestions are made on how entrainment can be systematically studied by creating constant-Ri flows in a numerical simulation or laboratory experiment.

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