2020
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0228186
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Comparison of design methods for negative pressure gradient rotary bodies: A CFD study

Abstract: Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulation is used to test two body design methods which use negative pressure gradient to suppress laminar flow separation and drag reduction. The steady-state model of the Transition SST model is used to calculate the pressure distribution, wall shear stress, and drag coefficient under zero angle of attack at different velocities. Four bodies designed by two different methods are considered. Our results show the first method is superior to the body of Hansen in drag reducti… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

1
1
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4

Relationship

0
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 26 publications
1
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This proximity of the flow to the surface keeps it stable and relatively free of turbulence [ 24 ]. These findings align with Liu et al [ 25 ], who observed that negative pressure gradients help prevent flow separations. Therefore, with the convergent section less susceptible to flow separation, θ c can be increased without adverse effects.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…This proximity of the flow to the surface keeps it stable and relatively free of turbulence [ 24 ]. These findings align with Liu et al [ 25 ], who observed that negative pressure gradients help prevent flow separations. Therefore, with the convergent section less susceptible to flow separation, θ c can be increased without adverse effects.…”
Section: Introductionsupporting
confidence: 92%
“…Therefore, drag reduction can be achieved by suppressing or eliminating separation. 34,35 Pressure distribution. The pressure distributions of smooth and grooves surface are simulated at R e = 1.19 × 10 5 and 1.59 × 10 5 .…”
Section: Flow Field Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%