Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T02:13:55.516Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Moderately three-dimensional separated and reattaching turbulent flow

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 April 2010

J. R. HARDMAN  and
P. E. HANCOCK
J. R. HARDMAN
Affiliation:
Fluids Research Centre, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, UK
P. E. HANCOCK*
Affiliation:
Fluids Research Centre, Faculty of Engineering and Physical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey GU2 7XH, UK
*
‡Email address for correspondence: P.Hancock@surrey.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A fully three-dimensional turbulent separated flow was set up such that it had a systematic link to two-dimensional flow, as a way of investigating the more complicated nature of this flow type. The central region of the flow was fully three-dimensional, but was bounded on its sides by regions of ‘spanwise invariance’ in which the flow was invariant in the lateral direction, or very nearly so. A special case of spanwise invariance, which is statistically two-dimensional, is one in which the streamlines are also coplanar, or at least nominally so in numerous experimental studies. Another aspect of the present arrangement is that the side regions should ideally provide well-defined boundary conditions. The separation was formed downstream of a doubly swept normal flat plate, forming a ‘v’-shaped separation line, mounted on the front of a splitter plate, mounted in the centre of the wind tunnel working section. The predominantly inward flow to the central region implies a negative lateral strain rate (∂W/∂z), but all nine strain rates are non-zero. Measurements were made using pulsed-wire anemometry techniques for mean velocities, Reynolds stresses and wall shear stress. Even though the sweep angle is mild at ±10°, the effect is to increase the bubble height by over 50% in its centre to create a ‘bulge’, symmetrical about the centreline. The degree of three-dimensionality is described as moderate in that the peak inflow velocity from the side regions is less than 0.2 of the free-stream velocity, but comparable with the peak in the reverse-flow velocity. A larger sweep angle would give a larger inflow velocity. A separate study (Cao & Hancock, Eur. J. Mech. B/Fluids, vol. 23, 2004, p. 519) has shown that the bulge persists very far downstream, so that accurate physical modelling of the separated region is likely to be important in modelling the flow well downstream. An intermediate region exists between the invariant side region and the bulge, where all the stress levels are reduced, as would be expected from the effects of streamline convergence. Although overall there is a flow inward to the centre (streamline convergence), part of the overlying shear layer is subjected to diverging flow and an intensification of Reynolds stresses near the centre of the bulge.

Type
Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 649 , 25 April 2010 , pp. 341 - 370
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adams, E. W. & Johnston, J. P. 1988 Flow structure in the near-wall zone of a turbulent separated flow. AIAA J. 26, 932–939.Google Scholar
Alam, M & Sandham, N. D. 2000 Direct numerical simulation of ‘short’ laminar separation bubbles with turbulent reattachment. J. Fluid Mech. 403, 223–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cao, C. 2002 The development of a three-dimensional turbulent separated flow downstream of reattachment. PhD Thesis, University of Surrey.Google Scholar
Cao, C. & Hancock, P. E. 2004 Boundary layer development after a region of three-dimensional separated flow. Eur. J. Mech. B/Fluids 23, 519–533.Google Scholar
Castro, I. P. & Bradshaw, P. 1976 The turbulence structure of a distorted mixing layer. J. Fluid Mech. 73, 265–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castro, I. P. & Cheun, B. S. 1982 The measurement of Reynolds stresses with a pulsed-wire anemometer. J. Fluid Mech. 118, 41–58.Google Scholar
Castro, I. P. & Dianat, M. 1990 Pulsed-wire anemometry near walls. Exp. Fluids 8, 343–352.Google Scholar
Castro, I. P., Dianat, M. & Bradbury, L. J. S. 1987 The pulsed wire skin-friction measurement technique. In Turbulent Shear Flows 5 (ed. Durst, F., Lauder, B. E., Lumley, J. L., Schmidt, F. W. & Whitelaw, J. H.), pp. 278–290. Springer.Google Scholar
Castro, I. P. & Epik, P. 1998 Boundary layer development after a separated region. J. Fluid Mech. 374, 91–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castro, I. P. & Haque, A. 1987 The structure of a turbulent separated shear layer bounding a separation region. J. Fluid Mech. 179, 439–468.Google Scholar
Ciampoli, F. & Hancock, P. E. 2006 Effects of flow width in nominally two-dimensional turbulent separated flows. Exp. Fluids 40, 196–202.Google Scholar
Dengel, P., Fernholz, H. H. & Hess, M. 1986 Skin-friction measurements in two- and three-dimensional highly turbulent flows with separation. In Advances in Turbulence (ed. Comte-Bellot, G. & Mathieu, J.), pp. 470–479. Springer.Google Scholar
Fernholz, H. H. 1994 Near-wall phenomena in turbulent separated flows. Acta Mech. 4, Suppl., 57–67.Google Scholar
Fernholz, H. H. & Warnack, D. 1998 The effects of a favourable pressure gradient and of Reynolds number on an incompressible axisymmetric turbulent boundary layer. Part 1. The turbulent boundary layer. J. Fluid Mech. 359, 329–356.Google Scholar
Hancock, P. E. 1999 Measurements of mean and fluctuating wall shear stress beneath spanwise-invariant separation bubbles. Exp. Fluids 27, 53–59.Google Scholar
Hancock, P. E. 2000 Low Reynolds number two-dimensional separated and reattaching turbulent shear flow. J. Fluid Mech. 410, 101–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hancock, P. E. 2005 Velocity scales in the near-wall layer beneath reattaching turbulent separated and boundary layer flows. Eur. J. Mech. B/Fluids 24, 425–438.Google Scholar
Hancock, P. E. 2007 Scaling of the near-wall layer beneath turbulent separated flow. Eur. J. Mech. B/Fluids 26, 271–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hancock, P. E. & Castro, I. P. 1993 End effects in nominally two-dimensional separated flows. Appl. Sci. Res. 51, 173–178.Google Scholar
Hancock, P. E. & McCluskey, F. M. 1996 Spanwise-invariant three-dimensional separated flow. Exp. Therm. Fluid Sci. 14, 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardman, J. R. 1998 Moderately three-dimensional separated and reattaching turbulent flow. PhD thesis, University of Surrey.Google Scholar
Hardman, J. R. & Hancock, P. E. 2000 The near-wall layer beneath a moderately converging three-dimensional turbulent separated and reattaching flow. Eur. J. Mech. B/Fluids 19, 653–672.Google Scholar
Huerre, P. & Monkewitz, P. A. 1985 Absolute and convective instabilities in free shear layers. J. Fluid Mech. 159, 151–168.Google Scholar
Jaroch, M. P. & Fernholz, H.-H. 1989 The three-dimensional character of a nominally two-dimensional separated and turbulent shear flow. J. Fluid Mech. 205, 523–552.Google Scholar
Johnson, A. E. & Hancock, P. E. 1991 The effect of extra-strain rates of curvature and divergence on mixing layers. In Turbulent Shear Flows 7 (ed. Durst, F., Lauder, B. E., Reynolds, W. C., Schmidt, F. W. & Whitelaw, J. H.) pp. 253–267. Springer.Google Scholar
Kaltenback, H-J. & Janke, G. 2000 Direct numerical simulation of flow separation behind a swept. Rearward-facing step at ReH = 3000. Phys. Fluids 12, 2320–2337.Google Scholar
Langston, L. S. & Boyle, M. T. 1982 A new surface flow-visualization technique. J. Fluid Mech. 125, 53–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
di Mare, L. & Jones, W. P. 2003 LES of turbulent flow past a swept fence. Intl J. Heat Fluid Flow 24, 606–615.Google Scholar
McCluskey, F. M., Hancock, P. E. & Castro, I. P. 1991 Three-dimensional separated flows. In Eighth Turbulent Shear Flows Symposium, Munich, Germany, 9.5.1–9.5.6.Google Scholar
Na, Y. & Moin, P. 1998 Direct numerical simulation of a separated turbulent boundary layer. J. Fluid Mech. 374, 379–405.Google Scholar
Patel, V. C. 1965 Calibration of the Preston tube and limitations on its use in pressure gradients. J. Fluid Mech. 23, 185–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, A. E. & Fairlie, B. D. 1974 Critical points in flow patterns. Adv. Geophys. B 18, 299–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poll, D. I. A. 1985 Some observtions of the transition process on the windward face of a long yawed cylinder. J. Fluid Mech. 150, 329–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruderich, R. & Fernholz, H. H. 1986 An experimental investigation of a turbulent shear flow with separation, reverse flow, and reattachment. J. Fluid Mech. 163, 283–322.Google Scholar
Schober, M., Hancock, P. E. & Siller, H. 1998 Pulsed-wire anemometry near walls. Exp. Fluids 25, 343–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Song, S., de Graaff, D. B. & Eaton, J. K. 2000 Experimental study of a separating, reattaching, and redeveloping flow over a smoothly contoured ramp. Intl J. Heat Fluid Flow 21, 512–519.Google Scholar
Sutton, E. P., Devenport, W. J. & Barkey Wolf, F. D. 1991 Experimental studies of the reattachment of separated shear layers. In Separated Flows and Jets: IUTAM Symposium, Novosibirsk (ed. Kozlov, V. V. & Dovgal, A. V.), pp. 573–588. Springer.Google Scholar
Yang, Z. & Voke, P. R. 2001 Large-eddy simulation of boundary layer separation and transition at a change of surface curvature. J. Fluid Mech. 439, 305–333.Google Scholar