Help with aerodynamic shape considerations

  • Thread starter Thread starter engineering
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Shape
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the considerations for designing an aerodynamic shape to minimize turbulence when airflow impinges perpendicularly on a structure. Participants explore various shapes and their implications on flow characteristics, particularly in the context of high-speed airflow.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the suitability of an airfoil shape for minimizing recirculation in the given flow conditions.
  • Another participant notes that flow obstruction typically leads to separation and recirculation, asking for more details about the application and Reynolds number.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the goal of the design, questioning whether it aims to minimize aerodynamic effects or alter airflow.
  • A participant suggests that a lower Reynolds number is desired to minimize turbulence, indicating a focus on laminar flow.
  • Concerns are raised about the implications of high velocities (100 to 300 meters per second) on flow characteristics, including potential trans-sonic flow issues.
  • Participants propose that streamlining the side opposite the incoming flow could reduce drag and turbulence.
  • There is a suggestion to build a fairing to improve the aerodynamic profile, but more information about the intended purpose is deemed necessary.
  • One participant speculates about the purpose of the device, suggesting it might be related to fluid integration into airflow, but acknowledges that the lack of specific design criteria complicates the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of agreement on the need for more information regarding the design's purpose and specifications. There is no consensus on the best aerodynamic shape or approach, and multiple competing views on how to minimize turbulence remain present.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the high velocities involved may complicate the flow analysis, and the discussion highlights the dependence on specific design criteria that have not been provided.

engineering
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
I have a flow acting perpendicular to a shape ie an airfoil however i don't think an airofoil is the best shape for the flow not to recirculate too much was wondering if anyone has any ideas? please view my attachment for basic drawing of the problem




thank you




engineering
 

Attachments

Engineering news on Phys.org
Whenever there is a flow obstruction perpendicular you will probably see separation/recirculation. May I ask what is the application, Reynolds number etc you are looking for? Your problem statement is rather vague.
 
I didn't want to be the first respondent here, since I don't really know anything about it, but I agree that the question is a bit vague. Are you looking to minimize the aerodynamic effects upon a necessary structure? Or are you trying to introduce a structure to alter airflow in some particular way?
 
I am trying to minimize turbulence so i would like the Reynold number to be lower than the turbulent value of reynold number.
 
Okay, two more questions, then. Is the airflow always going to be impinging upon this structure from the same direction? What about variations in speed?
My first thought is that some variation of a 'teardrop' cross-section would be best, but I'm no expert.
 
yes the shape is always going to be impinging the airflow the velocity of air varies from 100 meters per second up to 300 meters per second
 
Wow... that's a lot faster than I expected. There might be some trans-sonic flow problems that change things at the higher end of that range. Fred or Russ are probably the best guys to handle this.
 
At that speed I doubt your Reynolds number will be less then turbulent! Also is this in a duct, or open channel flow. In the first case the Reynolds number should be less then about 1200 for laminar flow.
 
First off, those are very high velocities. High enough that you cannot consider the flow incompressible. So that makes this more complicated already.

Second, if the impingement has to be perpendicular to the flow then what exactly are you trying to change?

My only suggestion would be to streamline the side opposite of the incoming flow. This will reduce drag and likely reduce (to some degree) some of the turbulence.

What are you looking to do with this device?
What is the height (into the flow) of the bump relative to its length (parallel to the flow)?
 
  • #10
the device is use to introduce some form of liquid into the flow i haven't any specific specifications for the design just thinking about the shape trying to bea s aerodynamically sensible as possible.
 
  • #11
h2oski1326 said:
Second, if the impingement has to be perpendicular to the flow then what exactly are you trying to change?

My only suggestion would be to streamline the side opposite of the incoming flow. This will reduce drag and likely reduce (to some degree) some of the turbulence.
That's exactly what I was thinking. Just build a fairing.

But also, yes, we really need more info about what the intent is.
 
  • #12
Sounds as if it's some sort of marker injector for a wind tunnel, but that doesn't make a lot of sense since that technology is old-hat.
It isn't an art project, is it? Like that guy who throws paint behind a jet engine and let's it splatter on a canvas?
Either way, I'm thinking that your aerodynamic profile has to be such that your fluid stream can be properly integrated into the airflow to achieve whatever purpose you have in mind. Whatever that purpose is, it can definitely impact upon what the most practical design will be.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
7K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K