Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-20T10:18:18.301Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Laminar and turbulent comparisons for channel flow and flow control

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2021

Ivan Marusic ,
D. D. Joseph  and
Krishnan Mahesh
Ivan Marusic
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering and Mechanics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA
D. D. Joseph
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering and Mechanics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA
Krishnan Mahesh
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering and Mechanics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A formula is derived that shows exactly how much the discrepancy between the volume flux in laminar and in turbulent flow at the same pressure gradient increases as the pressure gradient is increased. We compare laminar and turbulent flows in channels with and without flow control. For the related problem of a fixed bulk-Reynolds-number flow, we seek the theoretical lowest bound for skin-friction drag for control schemes that use surface blowing and suction with zero-net volume-flux addition. For one such case, using a crossflow approach, we show that sustained drag below that of the laminar-Poiseuille-flow case is not possible. For more general control strategies we derive a criterion for achieving sublaminar drag and use this to consider the implications for control strategy design and the limitations at high Reynolds numbers.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 570 , 10 January 2007 , pp. 467 - 477
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

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

del Álamo, J. C. & Jiménez, J. 2003 Spectra of the very large anisotropic scales in turbulent channels. Phys. Fluids 15 (6), L41–L44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
del Álamo, J. C., Jiménez, J., Zandonade, P. & Moser, R. D. 2004 Scaling of the energy spectra of turbulent channels. J. Fluid Mech. 500, 135–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barenblatt, G. I. 2005 Applied mechanics: an age old science perpetually in rebirth. ASME Timoshenko Medal Acceptance Speech.Google Scholar
Barenblatt, G. I., Chorin, A. J. & Prostokishin, V. M. 2005 A note concerning the Lighthill ‘sandwich model’ of tropical cyclones. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. 102, 11148–11150.Google Scholar
Bewley, T. R. 2001 Flow control: new challenges for a new renaissance. Prog. Aerospace Sci. 37, 21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bewley, T. R. & Aamo, O. M. 2004 A ‘win-win’ mechanism for low-drag transients in controlled two-dimensional channel flow and its implications for sustained drag reduction. J. Fluid Mech. 499, 183–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Busse, F. H. 1970 Bounds for turbulent shear flow. J. Fluid Mech. 41, 219–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Choi, H., Moin, P. & Kim, J. 1994 Active turbulence control for drag reduction in wall-bounded flows. J. Fluid Mech. 262, 75–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cortelezzi, L., Lee, K. H., Kim, J. & Speyer, J. L. 1998 Skin-friction drag reduction via robust reduced-order linear feedback control. Intl J. Comput. Fluid Dyn. 11, 79–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dean, R. B. 1978 Reynolds number dependence of skin friction and other bulk flow variables in two-dimensional rectangular duct flow. Trans. ASME: J. Fluids Engng 100, 215–223.Google Scholar
van Doorne, C. W. H. 2004 Stereoscopic PIV on transition in pipe flow. PhD thesis, TU-Delft, Netherlands.Google Scholar
Fukagata, K., Iwamoto, K. & Kasagi, N. 2002 Contribution of Reynolds stress distribution to the skin friction in wall-bounded flows. Phys. Fluids 14 (11), L73–L76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gore, R. & Crowe, C. 1989 Effect of particle size on modulating turbulent intensity. Intl J. Multiphase Flow 15, 279–285.Google Scholar
Howard, L. N. 1972 Bounds on flow quantities. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 4, 473–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoyas, S. & Jiménez, J. 2006 Scaling of the velocity fluctuations in turbulent channels up to Re τ = 2003. Phys. Fluids 18, 011702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iwamoto, K., Fukagata, K., Kasagi, N. & Suzuki, Y. 2005 Friction drag reduction achievable by near-wall turbulence manipulation at high Reynolds number. Phys. Fluids 17, 011702.10.1063/1.1827276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joseph, D. D. 1974 Response curves for plane Poiseuille flow. Adv. Appli. Mech. 14, 241–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKeon, B., Li, J., Jiang, W., Morrison, J. & Smits, A. 2004 Further observations on the mean velocity in fully-developed pipe flow. J. Fluid Mech. 501, 135–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McKeon, B., Zagarola, M. & Smits, A. 2005 A new friction factor relationship for fully developed pipe flow. J. Fluid Mech. 538, 429–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Min, T., Kang, S., Speyer, J. L. & Kim, J. 2006 Sustained sub-laminar drag in a fully developed channel flow. J. Fluid Mech. 558, 309–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muppidi, S. & Mahesh, K. 2005 Study of trajectories of jets in crossflow using direct numerical simulations. J. Fluid Mech. 530, 81–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, A. E., Marusic, I. & Jones, M. B. 2002 On the streamwise evolution of turbulent boundary layers in arbitrary pressure gradients. J. Fluid Mech. 461, 61–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, T. Y. 1942 Qualitative analysis of the flow of fluids in pipes. Am. J. Maths 64, 754–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar