AIAA Aviation 2019 Forum 2019
DOI: 10.2514/6.2019-2925
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

2D Flow Field Analysis by the Exergetic Method

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
5
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

1
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 8 publications
1
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…26). This confirms the fact that the isentropic exergy field is not interesting for design purposes in 2-D cases [15] because the related exergy is self-recovered downstream since the flow particles follow an isentropic trajectory; they return to the original (equilibrium) state by following a reversible path. This highlights the need of decomposing the exergy formulations in order to retain only the interesting part of the exergy from a design point of view: the nonisentropic field.…”
Section: A 2-d Subsonicsupporting
confidence: 65%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…26). This confirms the fact that the isentropic exergy field is not interesting for design purposes in 2-D cases [15] because the related exergy is self-recovered downstream since the flow particles follow an isentropic trajectory; they return to the original (equilibrium) state by following a reversible path. This highlights the need of decomposing the exergy formulations in order to retain only the interesting part of the exergy from a design point of view: the nonisentropic field.…”
Section: A 2-d Subsonicsupporting
confidence: 65%
“…This demonstrates that the decomposed exergy formulation is suited for wind-tunnel data analysis, whereas the original Arntz method requires an infinite survey plane integral since it also integrates the isentropic components (whose field varies at any point of the domain). Moreover, the C D ε distribution along the survey line matches the distribution of C D ε (not shown here for simplicity); thus, it will also differ from the Meheut profile drag distribution [15].…”
Section: A 2-d Subsonicmentioning
confidence: 82%
See 3 more Smart Citations