Investigation of the concave curvature effect for an impinging jet flow

P. Aillaud, L. Y. M. Gicquel, and F. Duchaine
Phys. Rev. Fluids 2, 114608 – Published 27 November 2017
PDFHTMLExport Citation

Abstract

The concave curvature effect for an impinging jet flow is discussed in this paper. To do so, a submerged axisymmetric isothermal impinging jet at a Reynolds number (based on the nozzle diameter and the bulk velocity at the nozzle outlet) Re=23000 and for a nozzle to plate distance of two jet diameters H=2D is considered. This investigation is done numerically using a wall-resolved large-eddy simulation. Two geometrical arrangements are studied. These correspond to a jet impinging on a flat plate and a jet impinging on a hemispherical concave plate with a relative curvature D/d=0.089, where d is the concave plate diameter. A detailed comparison shows that both flow configurations are very similar in terms of flow dynamics and heat transfer behaviors. The same mechanisms, coming from the initial jet instability and driving the heat transfer at the wall, are found for both geometries. However, a reduction of the mean wall heat transfer is reported for the jet impinging on the concave surface when compared to the flat plate impingement. This reduction mainly comes from the alleviation of the secondary peak. The deterioration of wall heat transfer is shown to be caused by a reduction in the intensity of the intermittent cold fluid injections generated by the secondary structures. These weaker events are assumed to be the consequence of the stabilizing normal pressure gradient, in the outer layer of the wall jet, induced by the concave curvature of the plate. This result goes against the current consensus, inherited from boundary layer studies, that is to say, that concave curvature enhances the heat transfer rate at the wall due to the formation of Görtler vortices. In an attempt to explain the contradictory result of the present study, a discussion is proposed in this paper showing that the commonly used analogy with boundary layer results must be made with care owing to several inherent differences between impinging jet and boundary layer flows.

  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
  • Figure
30 More
  • Received 13 July 2017

DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevFluids.2.114608

©2017 American Physical Society

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Fluid Dynamics

Authors & Affiliations

P. Aillaud*, L. Y. M. Gicquel, and F. Duchaine

  • CFD Team, Centre Européen de Recherche et de Formation Avancée en Calcul Scientifique, 42 Avenue Gaspard Coriolis, 31057 Toulouse, France

  • *pierre.aillaud@cerfacs.fr

Article Text (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand

Supplemental Material (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand

References (Subscription Required)

Click to Expand
Issue

Vol. 2, Iss. 11 — November 2017

Reuse & Permissions
Access Options
Author publication services for translation and copyediting assistance advertisement

Authorization Required


×
×

Images

×

Sign up to receive regular email alerts from Physical Review Fluids

Log In

Cancel
×

Search


Article Lookup

Paste a citation or DOI

Enter a citation
×