Numerical appraisal of jet-to-crossflow coupling in a transverse jet
The nearfield evolution of a jet in crossflow is strictly related to the coupling between the flow in the pipe and the transverse flow. In this work, we address the problem of identifying the extent of this coupling for an incompressible fluid and we examine the influence of the inlet boundary conditions on the simulation of the transverse jet. First, we validate the numerical computations using experimental data by Shandorov (Abramovich, 1963). We examine in detail the flow field calculated numerically for a jet-to-crossflow velocity ratio equal to 2.2. We evaluate in particular the evolution of the streamwise velocity profile and vorticity in the crossflow direction to characterize the structure of the jet. Second, we evaluate the effect of increasing the jet-to-crossflow velocity ratios on jet penetration. Third, we compare the numerical results obtained considering the pipe and imposing a uniform velocity profile at the jet exit. Results show that the jet-to-crossflow velocity ratio and the inlet boundary condition for the jet influence jet penetration into the crossflow and jet velocity distribution.
KeywordsVelocity Profile Axial Velocity Velocity Ratio Inlet Boundary Condition Pipe Axis
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Abramovich, G. (1963). The theory of turbulent jets,Physical Sciences Engineering.Google Scholar
- Davis, S. A., and Glezer, A. (1999). Mixing control of fuel jets using synthetic jet technology: velocity field measurements AIAA Paper 99–0447, 37 th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, NV, 1–15.Google Scholar
- Degano, G. M., Campolo, M., Soldati, A., and Cortelezzi, L. (2002). Influence of inlet boundary conditions on the numerical calculation of a jet in crossflow Int. J. Heat and Fluid Flow, (submitted).Google Scholar
- Schlichting, H. (1979). Boundary layer theory, Mc Graw Hill.Google Scholar
- Yuan, L. L., Street, R. L., and Ferziger, J. H. (1999). Large-eddy simulations of a round jet in crossflow J. Fluid Mech., 379, 71–104.Google Scholar