Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-xh45t Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-09-17T12:48:09.821Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Direct numerical simulation of spatially developing turbulent boundary layers with uniform blowing or suction

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 June 2011

YUKINORI KAMETANI  and
KOJI FUKAGATA
YUKINORI KAMETANI*
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Keio University, Hiyoshi 3-14-1, Kohoku-ku, Yokohama 223-8522, Japan
KOJI FUKAGATA
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Keio University, Hiyoshi 3-14-1, Kohoku-ku, Yokohama 223-8522, Japan
*
†Email address for correspondence: kametani@fukagata.mech.keio.ac.jp
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Direct numerical simulation (DNS) of spatially developing turbulent boundary layer with uniform blowing (UB) or uniform suction (US) is performed aiming at skin friction drag reduction. The Reynolds number based on the free stream velocity and the 99% boundary layer thickness at the inlet is set to be 3000. A constant wall-normal velocity is applied on the wall in the range, −0.01U∞ ≤ Vctr ≤ 0.01U∞. The DNS results show that UB reduces the skin friction drag, while US increases it. The turbulent fluctuations exhibit the opposite trend: UB enhances the turbulence, while US suppresses it. Dynamical decomposition of the local skin friction coefficient cf using the identity equation (FIK identity) (Fukagata, Iwamoto & Kasagi, Phys. Fluids, vol. 14, 2002, pp. L73–L76) reveals that the mean convection term in UB case works as a strong drag reduction factor, while that in US case works as a strong drag augmentation factor: in both cases, the contribution of mean convection on the friction drag overwhelms the turbulent contribution. It is also found that the control efficiency of UB is much higher than that of the advanced active control methods proposed for channel flows.

JFM classification

Boundary Layers: Boundary layer control Flow Control: Drag reduction Turbulent Flows: Turbulent boundary layers

Information

Type
Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 681 , 25 August 2011 , pp. 154 - 172
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Bewley, T. R. 2009 A fundamental limit on the balance of power in a transpiration-controlled channel flow. J. Fluid Mech. 632, 443–446.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
Choi, H., Jeon, W.-P., & Kim, J. 2008 Control of flow over a bluff body. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 40, 113–139.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
Fukagata, K., Iwamoto, K. & Kasagi, N. 2002 Contribution of Reynolds stress distribution to the skin friction wall-bounded flows. Phys. Fluids 14, L73–L76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fukagata, K. & Kasagi, N. 2002 Highly energy-conservative finite difference method for the cylindrical coordinate system. J. Comput. Phys. 181, 478–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fukagata, K. & Kasagi, N. 2003 Drag reduction in turbulent pipe flow with feedback control applied partially to wall. Intl J. Heat Fluid Flow 24, 480–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fukagata, K. & Kasagi, N. 2004 Suboptimal control for drag reduction via suppression of near-wall Reynolds shear stress. Intl J. Heat Fluid Flow 25, 341–350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fukagata, K., Kasagi, N. & Koumoutsakos, P. 2006 A theoretical prediction of friction drag reduction in turbulent flow by superhydrophobic surfaces. Phys. Fluids 18, 051703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fukagata, K., Sugiyama, K. & Kasagi, N. 2009 On the lower bound of net driving power in controlled duct flows. Physica D 238, 1082–1086.Google Scholar
Gomez, T., Flutet, V. & Sagaut, P. 2009 Contribution of Reynolds stress distribution to the skin friction in compressible turbulent channel flows. Phys. Rev. E 79, 035301.Google Scholar
Ham, F. E., Lien, F. S. & Strong, A. B. 2002 A fully conservative second-order finite difference scheme for incompressible flow on nonuniform grids. J. Comput. Phys. 177, 117–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hou, Y. X., Somandepalli, V. S. R. & Mungal, M. G. 2006 A technique to determine total shear stress and polymer stress profiles in drag reduced boundary layer flows. Exp. Fluids 40, 589–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hou, Y. X., Somandepalli, V. S. R. & Mungal, M. G. 2008 Streamwise development of turbulent boundary-layer drag reduction with polymer injection. J. Fluid Mech. 597, 31–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Iwamoto, K., Suzuki, Y. & Kasagi, N. 2002 Reynolds number effect on wall turbulence: toward effective feedback control. Intl J. Heat Fluid Flow 23, 678–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kajishima, T. 2003 Numerical Simulation of Turbulent Flows (in Japanese), pp. 149–155. Yokendo.Google Scholar
Kasagi, N., Hasegawa, Y. & Fukagata, K. 2009 Toward cost-effective control of wall turbulence for skin friction drag reduction. Advances in Turbulence XII, Springer Proceedings in Physics, vol. 132, pp. 189–200. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kasagi, N., Suzuki, Y. & Fukagata, K. 2009 Microelectromechanical systems-based feedback control of turbulence for skin friction reduction. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 41, 231–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J. 2003 Control of turbulent boundary layers. Phys. Fluids 15, 1093–1105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J. & Bewley, T. R. 2007 A linear systems approach to flow control. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 39, 383–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J. Kim, K. & Sung, H. J. 2003 Wall pressure fluctuations in a turbulent boundary layer after blowing or suction. AIAA J. 41, 1697–1704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, J., Moin, P. & Moser, R 1987 Turbulence statistics in fully developed channel flow at low Reynolds number. J. Fluid Mech. 177, 133–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, K., Sung, H. J. & Chung, M. K. 2002 Assessment of local blowing and suction in a turbulent boundary layer. AIAA J. 40, 175–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kong, H., Choi, H. & Lee, J. S. 2000 Direct numerical simulation of turbulent thermal boundary layers. Phys. Fluids 12, 2555–2568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lund, T. S., Wu, X. & Squires, K. D. 1998 Generation of turbulent inflow data for spatially developing boundary layer simulations. J. Comput. Phys. 140, 233–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, C., Kim, J. & Choi, H 1998 Suboptimal control of turbulent channel flow for drag reduction. J. Fluid Mech. 358, 245–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marusic, I., Mathis, R. & Hutchins, N. 2010 Predictive model for wall-bounded turbulent flow. Science 329, 193–196.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mehdi, F. & White, C. M. 2011 Integral form of the skin friction coefficient suitable for experimental data. Exp. Fluids 50, 43–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Min, T., Kang, S. M., Speyer, J. L. & Kim, J. 2006 Sustained sub-laminar drag in a fully developed channel flow. J. Fluid Mech. 558, 309–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miyauchi, T., Tanahashi, M. & Suzuki, M. 1996 Inflow and outflow boundary conditions for direct numerical simulations. JSME Intl J. Ser. B 39-2, 305–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monty, J. P., Hutchins, N., Ng, H. C. H., Marusic, I. & Chong, M. S. 2009 A comparison of turbulent pipe, channel and boundary layer flow. J. Fluid Mech. 632, 431–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pamiès, M., Garnier, E., Merlen, A. & Sagaut, P. 2007 Response of a spatially developing turbulent boundary layer to active control strategies in the framework of opposition control. Phys. Fluids 19, 108102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, J. & Choi, H. 1999 Effects of uniform blowing or suction from a spanwise slot on a turbulent boundary layer flow. Phys. Fluids 11, 3095–3105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peet, Y. & Sagaut, P. 2009 Theoretical prediction of turbulent skin friction on geometrically complex surfaces. Phys. Fluids 21, 105105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Quadrio, M. & Ricco, P. 2004 Critical assessment of turbulent drag reduction through spanwise wall oscillations. J. Fluid Mech. 521, 251–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schoenherr, K. E. 1932 Resistance of flat surfaces moving through a fluid. Trans. Soc. Nav. Archit. Mar. Engrs 40, 279–313.Google Scholar
Spalart, P. R., Moser, R. D. & Rogers, M. M. 1991 Spectral methods for the Navier–Stokes equations with one infinite and two periodic directions. J. Comput. Phys. 96, 297–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevenson, T. N. 1963 A law of the wall for turbulent boundary layers with suction and injection. Aero. Rep. 166. Cranfield College.Google Scholar
Sugiyama, K., Calzavarini, E. & Lohse, D. 2008 Microbubbly drag reduction in Taylor–Couette flow in the wavy vortex regime. J. Fluid Mech. 608 21–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sumitani, Y. & Kasagi, N. 1995. Direct numerical simulation of turbulent transport with uniform wall injection and suction. AIAA J. 33, 1220–1228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, X. H. & Moin, P. 2009 Direct numerical simulation of turbulence in a nominally zero-pressure-gradient flat plate boundary layer. J. Fluid Mech. 630, 5–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, C. M. & Mungal, M. G. 2008 Mechanics and prediction of turbulent drag reduction with polymer additives. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 40, 235–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, J., Dong, S., Maxey, M. & Karniadakis., G. E. 2007 Turbulent drag reduction by constant near-wall forcing. J. Fluid Mech. 582, 79–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yakeno, A., Hasegawa, Y. & Kasagi, N. 2009 In Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Turbulence and Shear Flow Phenomena, Seoul.Google Scholar
Yu, B., Li, F. & Kawaguchi, Y. 2004 Numerical and experimental investigation of turbulent characteristics in a drag reducing flow with surfactant additives. Intl J. Heat Fluid Flow 25, 961–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar