SearcharxivSearch

arXiv subjects

Edward B. White

Publications and source records attributed to Edward B. White.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

Roughness-induced transition and turbulent wedge spreading

Boundary layer transition triggered by a discrete roughness element generates a turbulent wedge that spreads laterally as it proceeds downstream. Historical literature reports the spreading half angle is approximately 6$^{\circ}$ in zero-pressure gradient flows regardless of Reynolds number and roughness shape. Recent simulations and experiments have sought to explain the lateral-spreading mechanism and have observed high- and low-speed streaks along the flanks of the wedge that appear central to the spreading process. To better elucidate the roles of Reynolds number and of streaks, a naphthalene flow-visualization survey and hotwire measurements are conducted over a wider range of Reynolds numbers and longer streamwise domain than previous experiments. The naphthalene results show that, while the mean spreading angle is consistent with the historical literature, there may be a weak dependency on $x$-based Reynolds number, which emerges as a result of the large sample size of the survey. The distance between the roughness element and the wedge origin exhibits a clear trend with the roughness-height-based Reynolds number. The hotwire measurements explain that this difference originates from whether breakdown occurs first in the central lobe or flanking streaks of the turbulent wedge. This observation highlights different transition dynamics at play within the supercritical regime. In agreement with past experiments, the hotwire measurements reveal that breakdown occurs in the wall normal shear layer above low-speed streaks. Due to the elongated streamwise extent of this experiment, secondary streak dynamics are also uncovered. A high-speed streak is produced directly downstream of the initiating low-speed streak. Subsequently, a new low-speed streak is observed outboard of the previous high-speed streak. This self-sustaining process is the driving mechanism of turbulent wedge spreading.

physics.flu-dyn

Drop Interface and Airflow Unsteadiness in Wind-Forced Drop Depinning

Liquid drops that are pinned to solid surfaces by contact-angle hysteresis can be dislodged by wind forcing. When this occurs at high Reynolds numbers, substantial drop-interface oscillations precede depinning. It has been hypothesized that coupling between drop interface oscillations and unsteady airflow vortices are important to the depinning process. This possibility is investigated using simultaneous high-speed side-view drop images and airflow fluctuation measurements. The results show no evidence of coupling across a range of drop volumes and wind speeds for water drops in air. When properly scaled by drop volume, drop interface fluctuation frequencies are not affected by wind speed. Airflow vortex shedding occurs as if the drop were a solid surface protuberance. For the air/water system in these experiments, vortex shedding frequencies are substantially higher than drop interface frequencies and the disparate frequencies may make the hypothesized coupling impossible.

physics.flu-dyn

Wind- and Gravity-Forced Drop Depinning

Liquid drops adhere to solid surfaces due to surface tension but can depin and run back along the surface due to wind or gravity forcing. This work develops a simple mechanistic model for depinning by combined gravity and high-Reynolds-number wind forcing and tests that model using water drops on a roughened aluminum surface. On non-inclined surfaces, drops depin at a constant critical Weber number, $W\!e_{\mathrm{crit}}=7.9$, for the present wettability conditions. On inclined surfaces, $W\!e_{\mathrm{crit}}$ decreases linearly with the product of the Bond number and the width-to-height aspect ratio of the unforced drop. The linear slope is different in distinct wind- and gravity-dominated forcing regimes above and below $W\!e_{\mathrm{crit}}=4$. Contact line shapes and drop profile shapes are measured at depinning conditions but do not adequately explain the differences between the two forcing regimes.

physics.flu-dyn