2000
DOI: 10.1063/1.870266
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Numerical simulation of bubble-type vortex breakdown within a tube-and-vane apparatus

Abstract: Numerical calculations for three-dimensional, unsteady, laminar, bubble-type vortex breakdown within a tube-and-vane-type apparatus at a Reynolds number of 2000 and circulation number Ω=1.41 are presented. This study is unique in that rather than specifying the inlet swirl velocity through a fit to experimental data (or a Burgers profile), the swirl was induced by directing the fluid through an array of 16 turning vanes, the arrangement being similar to that employed in the original experimental works of Sarpk… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

2
15
0

Year Published

2002
2002
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
2
15
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Besides e.g. the work by Spall and co-workers [31,32], this is one of the first reports of three-dimensional simulation of turbulent vortex breakdown in conjunction with experimental validation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Besides e.g. the work by Spall and co-workers [31,32], this is one of the first reports of three-dimensional simulation of turbulent vortex breakdown in conjunction with experimental validation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Another problem is that in some studies the circulation further downstream actually exceeds that predicted by equation (3.4) by a significant margin. For example, the experimental data of Faler & Leibovich (1978) indicates an overshoot of 38% while there is an overshoot of 26% in the numerical simulation of a complete guide vane apparatus by Snyder & Spall (2000). Figure 2 compares the circulation measured outside the vortex core and wall boundary layers with the estimate from equation (3.4).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The reason for this inconsistent behaviour is not known; however it is worthwhile pointing out that overshoots are not uncommon. The experimental data of Faler & Leibovich (1978) indicate an overshoot of 38%, while there is an overshoot of 26% in the numerical simulation by Snyder & Spall (2000). Such behaviour makes Ω, as defined by equations (3.3) and (3.4), somewhat unreliable as a flow parameter.…”
Section: Circulation and Stream Functionmentioning
confidence: 95%