Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T04:50:57.476Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Transverse-jet shear-layer instabilities. Part 2. Linear analysis for large jet-to-crossflow velocity ratio

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 April 2008

LEONARDO S. DE B. ALVES ,
ROBERT E. KELLY  and
ANN R. KARAGOZIAN
LEONARDO S. DE B. ALVES
Affiliation:
Departamento de Engenharia Mecanica e de Materiais, IME, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
ROBERT E. KELLY
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1597, USA
ANN R. KARAGOZIAN
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1597, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The dominant non-dimensional parameter for isodensity transverse jet flow is the mean jet-to-crossflow velocity ratio, R. In Part 1 (Megerian et al., J. Fluid Mech., vol. 593, 2007, p. 93), experimental results are presented for the behaviour of transverse-jet near-field shear-layer instabilities for velocity ratios in the range 1 < R ≤ 10. A local linear stability analysis is presented in this paper for the subrange R>4, using two different base flows for the transverse jet. The first analysis assumes the flow field to be described by a modified version of the potential flow solution of Coelho & Hunt (J. Fluid Mech., vol. 200, 1989, p. 95), in which the jet is enclosed by a vortex sheet. The second analysis assumes a continuous velocity model based on the same inviscid base flow; this analysis is valid for the larger values of Strouhal number expected to be typical of the most unstable disturbances, and allows prediction of a maximum spatial growth rate for the disturbances. In both approaches, results are obtained by expanding in inverse powers of R so that the free-jet results are obtained as R→∞. The results from both approaches agree in the moderately low-frequency regime. Maximum spatial growth rates and associated Strouhal numbers extracted from the second approach both increase with decreasing velocity ratio R, in agreement with the experimental results from Part 1 in the range 4<R≤10. The nominally axisymmetric mode is found to be the most unstable mode in the transverse-jet shear-layer near-field region, upstream of the end of the potential core. The overall agreement of theoretical and experimental results suggests that convective instability occurs in the transverse-jet shear layer for jet-to-crossflow velocity ratios above 4, and that the instability is strengthened as R is decreased.

Type
Papers
Information
Journal of Fluid Mechanics , Volume 602 , 10 May 2008 , pp. 383 - 401
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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.)

References

REFERENCES

de B. Alves, L. S. 2006 Transverse jet shear-layer instabilities: Linear stability analysis and numerical simulations. PhD thesis, University of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles, USA.Google Scholar
de B. Alves, L. S., Kelly, R. E. & Karagozian, A. R. 2007 Local stability analysis of an inviscid transverse jet. J. Fluid Mech. 581, 401–418.Google Scholar
Batchelor, G. K. & Gill, A. E. 1962 Analysis of the stability of axisymmetric jets. J. Fluid Mech. 14, 529–551.Google Scholar
Blossey, P. N. & Schmid, P. J. 2002 Global stability analysis of a jet in cross flow. Bull. Am. Phys. Soc. 47, 10. 92.Google Scholar
Chomaz, J. M. 2005 Global instabilities in spatially developing flows: Non-normality and nonlinearity. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 37, 357–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coelho, S. L. V. & Hunt, J. C. R. 1989 The dynamics of the near field of strong jets in cross flow. J. Fluid Mech. 200, 95–120.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. & Wygnanski, I. 1987 The evolution of instabilities in the axisymmetric jet. Part 1. The linear growth of disturbances. J. Fluid Mech. 176, 191–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Corke, T. C. & Kusek, S. M. 1993 Resonance in axisymmetric jets with controlled helical-mode input. J. Fluid Mech. 249, 307–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cortelezzi, L. & Karagozian, A. R. 2001 On the formation of the counter-rotating vortex pair in transverse jets. J. Fluid Mech. 446, 347–373.Google Scholar
Crighton, D. G. & Gaster, M. 1976 Stability of slowly diverging jet flow. J. Fluid Mech. 77, 397–413.Google Scholar
Crow, S. C. & Champagne, F. M. 1971 Orderly structure in jet turbulence. J. Fluid Mech. 48, 547–591.Google Scholar
Fric, T. F. & Roshko, A 1994 Vortical structure in the wake of a transverse jet. J. Fluid Mech. 279, 1–47.Google Scholar
Huerre, P. & Monkewitz, P. A. 1990 Local and global instabilities in spatially developing flows. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 22, 473–537.Google Scholar
Kelso, R. & Smits, A. 1995 Horseshoe vortex systems resulting from the interaction between a laminar boundary layer and a transverse jet. Phys. Fluids 7, 153–158.Google Scholar
Kelso, R. M., Lim, T. T. & Perry, A. E. 1996 An experimental study of round jets in cross flow. J. Fluid Mech. 306, 111–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Megerian, S., Davitian, J., de B. Alves, L. S. & Karagozian, A. R. 2007 Transverse jet shear-layer instabilities. Part 1. Experimental studies. J. Fluid Mech. 593, 93–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michalke, A. 1984 Survey on jet instability theory. Prog. Aerospace Sci. 21, 159–199.Google Scholar
Raman, G., Rice, E. J. & Reshotko, E. 1994 Mode spectra of natural disturbances in a circular jet and the effect of acoustic forcing. Exps. Fluids 17, 415–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmid, P. 2007 Nonmodal stability theory. Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 39, 129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfram, S. 1999 The Mathematica Book, 4th edn. Cambridge: Wolfram Media.Google Scholar
Yoda, M., Hesselink, L. & Mungal, M. G. 1992 The evolution and nature of large-scale structures in the turbulent jet. Phys. Fluids A 4, 803–811.Google Scholar