No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Three-dimensional flow around and through a porous screen
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 May 2024
Abstract
We investigate the three-dimensional (3-D) flow around and through a porous screen for various porosities at high Reynolds number 
$Re = {O}(10^4)$. Historically, the study of this problem has been focused on two-dimensional cases and for screens spanning completely or partially a channel. Since many recent problems have involved a porous object in a 3-D free flow, we present a 3-D model initially based on Koo & James (J. Fluid Mech., vol. 60, 1973, pp. 513–538) and Steiros & Hultmark (J. Fluid Mech., vol. 853, 2018 pp. 1–11) for screens of arbitrary shapes. In addition, we include an empirical viscous correction factor accounting for viscous effects in the vicinity of the screen. We characterize experimentally the aerodynamic drag coefficient for a porous square screen composed of fibres, immersed in a laminar air flow with various solidities and different angles of attack. We test various fibre diameters to explore the effect of the space between the pores on the drag force. Using PIV and hot wire probe measurements, we visualize the flow around and through the screen, and in particular measure the proportion of fluid that is deviated around the screen. The predictions from the model for drag coefficient, flow velocities and streamlines are in good agreement with our experimental results. In particular, we show that local viscous effects are important: at the same solidity and with the same air flow, the drag coefficient and the flow deviations strongly depend on the Reynolds number based on the fibre diameter. The model, taking into account 3-D effects and the shape of the porous screen, and including an empirical viscous correction factor that is valid for fibrous screens may have many applications including the prediction of water collection efficiency for fog harvesters.
- Type
- JFM Papers
- Information
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press
References
Ando, S., Nishikawa, M., Kaneda, M. & Suga, K. 2022 Numerical simulation of filtration processes in the flow-induced deformation of fibrous porous media by a three-dimensional two-way fluid–structure interaction scheme. Chem. Engng Sci. 252, 117500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Apelt, C.J. & West, G.S. 1974 The effects of wake splitter plates on bluff-body flow in the range 
$10^{4}< Re<5 \times 10^4$. Part 2. J. Fluid Mech. 71, 145–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
$10^{4}< Re<5 \times 10^4$. Part 2. J. Fluid Mech. 71, 145–160.CrossRefGoogle ScholarAyati, A.A., Steiros, K., Miller, M.A., Duvvuri, S. & Hultmark, M. 2019 A double-multiple streamtube model for vertical axis wind turbines of arbitrary rotor loading. Wind Energy Sci. 4 (4), 653–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, B.J., Montero, J.I., Parra, J.P., Robertson, A.P., Baeza, E. & Kamaruddin, R. 2003 Airflow resistance of greenhouse ventilators with and without insect screens. Biosyst. Engng 86 (2), 217–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bourrianne, P., Xue, N., Nunes, J., Abkarian, M. & Stone, H.A. 2021 Quantifying the effect of a mask on expiratory flows. Phys. Rev. Fluids 6 (11), 110511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Bray, B.G. 1957 Low speed wind tunnel tests on perforated square flat plates normal to the airstream: drag and velocity fluctuation measurements. Current Paper 323. Ministry of Supply, Aeronautical Research Council.Google Scholar
Brundrett, E. 1993 Prediction of pressure drop for incompressible flow through screens. J. Fluids Engng 115 (2), 239–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carvajal, D., Silva-Llanca, L., Larraguibel, D. & González, B. 2020 On the aerodynamic fog collection efficiency of fog water collectors via three-dimensional numerical simulations. Atmos. Res. 245, 105–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheer, A.Y.L. & Koehl, M.A.R. 1987 Paddles and rakes: fluid flow through bristled appendages of small organisms. J. Theor. Biol. 129, 17–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crompton, M.J. & Barrett, R.V. 2000 Investigation of the separation bubble formed behind the sharp leading edge of a flat plate at incidence. Proc. Inst. Mech. Engrs G 214 (3), 157–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
de Dios Rivera, J. 2011 Aerodynamic collection efficiency of flog collectors. Atmos. Res. 102, 335–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Du, W., Iacoviello, F., Fernandez, T., Loureiro, R., Brett, D.J.L. & Shearing, P.R. 2021 Microstructure analysis and image-based modelling of face masks for Covid-19 virus protection. Commun. Mater. 2 (69), 217–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckert, B. & Pflüger, F. 1942 The resistance coefficient of commercial round wire grids. Technical Memorandum 1003. National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics.Google Scholar
Fail, R., Lawford, J.A. & Eyre, R.C.W. 1957 Low-speed-experiments on the wake characteristics of flat plates normal to an air stream. Rep. and Memoranda 3120. Aeronautical Research Council.Google Scholar
Giannoulis, A., Stathopoulos, T., Briassoulis, D. & Mistriotis, A. 2012 Wind loading on vertical panels with different permeabilities. J. Wind Engng Ind. Aerodyn. 107–108, 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunter, N.M. 1967 Potential Theory and its Application to Basic Problems of Mathematical Physics. Frederick Ungar.Google Scholar
Hoerner, S.F. 1952 Aerodynamic properties of screens and fabrics. Textile Res. J. 22 (4), 274–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hood, K., Jammalamadaka, M.S.S. & Hosoi, A.E. 2019 Marine crustaceans with hairy appendages: role of hydrodynamic boundary layers in sensing and feeding. Phys. Rev. Fluids 4, 114102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ito, A. & Garry, K.P. 1998 Pressure measurements around a two-dimensional gauze at incidence. J. Fluids Struct. 12, 171–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johari, H. & Desabrais, K.J. 2005 Vortex shedding in the near wake of a parachute canopy. J. Fluid Mech. 536, 185–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalugin, V.T., Epikhin, A.S., Chernukha, P.A. & Kalugina, M.D. 2021 The effect of perforation on aerodynamic characteristics and the vortex flow field around a flat plate. IOP Conf. Ser. 1191, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koo, J.-K. & James, D.F. 1973 Fluid flow around and through a screen. J. Fluid Mech. 60, 513–538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kress, R. 1999 Linear Integral Equations, Applied Mathematical Sciences, vol. 82. Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laws, E.M. & Livesey, J.L. 1978 Flow through screens. Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech. 10, 247–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledda, P.G., Boujo, E., Camarri, S., Gallaire, F. & Zampogna, G.A. 2021 Homogenization-based design of microstructured membranes: wake flow past permeable shells. J. Fluid Mech. 927, A31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ledda, P.G., Siconolfi, L., Viola, F., Gallaire, F. & Camarri, S. 2018 Suppression of von Kármán vortex streets past porous rectangular cylinders. Phys. Rev. Fluids 3, 103901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Letchford, C.W. 2001 Wind loads on rectangular signboards and hoardings. J. Wind Engng Ind. Aerodyn. 89, 135–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mittal, R., Ni, R. & Seo, J.-H. 2020 The flow physics of Covid-19. J. Fluid Mech. 894, F2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moncuquet, A., Mitranescu, A., Marchand, O.C., Ramananarivo, S. & Duprat, C. 2022 Collecting fog with vertical fibres: combined laboratory and in-situ study. Atmos. Res. 277, 106312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monjezi, M. & Jamaati, H. 2021 The effects of face mask specifications on work of breathing and particle filtration efficiency. Med. Engng Phys. 98, 36–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Okamoto, M. & Azuma, A. 2011 Aerodynamic characteristics at low Reynolds numbers for wings of various planforms. AIAA J. 49 (6), 1135–1150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Neill, F.G. 2006 Source models of flow through and around screens and gauzes. Ocean Engng 33, 1884–1895.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parkinson, G.V. & Jandali, T. 1970 A wake source model for bluff body potential flow. J. Fluid Mech. 40, 577–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pezzulla, M., Strong, E.F., Gallaire, F. & Reis, P.M. 2020 Deformation of porous flexible strip in low and moderate Reynolds number flows. Phys. Rev. Fluids 5, 084103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pinker, R.A. & Herbert, M.V. 1967 Pressure loss associated with compressible flow through square-mesh wire gauzes. J. Mech. Engng Sci. 9 (1), 11–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pomaranzi, G., Daniotti, N., Schito, P., Rosa, L. & Zasso, A. 2020 Experimental assessment of the effects of a porous double skin façade system on cladding loads. J. Wind Engng Ind. Aerodyn. 196, 104019.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pontavice, E.D. 2016 Propulsion par cerf-volant: envol et pérégrinations. PhD thesis, Université Paris-Saclay.Google Scholar
Prandtl, L. & Flachsbart, O. 1932 Widerstand von seidengazefiltern, runddraht- und bledistreifensieben mit quadratischen maschen. Ergebnisse der Aerodynamischen Versuchsanstalt zu Göttingen.Google Scholar
Regalado, C.M. & Ritter, A. 2016 The design of an optimal fog water collector: a theoretical analysis. Atmos. Res. 178–179, 45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reynolds, A.J. 1969 Flow deflection by gauze screen. J. Mech. Engng Sci. 11 (65), 290–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roshko, A. 1954 A new hodograph for free-streamline theory. Tech. Note 3168. National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics.Google Scholar
Sarpkaya, T. & Lindsey, P.J. 1990 Unsteady flow about porous cambered shells. J. Aircraft 28 (8), 502–508.Google Scholar
Schubauer, G.B., Spangenberg, W.G. & Klebanoff, P.S. 1950 Aerodynamic characteristics of damping screens. National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics Collection 2001.Google Scholar
Shklyar, A. & Arbel, A. 2008 Numerical simulations of turbulent flow through screen mesh by transient SST and $k-\epsilon$ turbulent models. Acta Hortic. 802, 61–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
$k-\epsilon$ turbulent models. Acta Hortic. 802, 61–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarSimmons, M.A. & Cowdrey, C.F. 1945 Measurement of the aerodynamic forces acting on pours screens. Rep. and Memoranda 2276. National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics.Google Scholar
Steiros, K., Bempedelis, N. & Cicolin, M.M. 2022 An analytical blockage correction model for high-solidity turbines. J. Fluid Mech. 948, A57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steiros, K. & Hultmark, M. 2018 Drag on flat plates of arbitrary porosity. J. Fluid Mech. 853, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, G.I. 1944 Air resistance of a flat plate of very porous material. Rep. and Memoranda 2236. Aeronautical Research Council.Google Scholar
Taylor, G.I. & Davies, R.M. 1944 The aerodynamics of porous sheets. Rep. and Memoranda 2237. Aeronautical Research Council.Google Scholar
Teitel, M. 2010 Using computational fluid dynamics simulations to determine pressure drops on woven screens. Biosyst. Engng 105, 172–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torres, G.E. & Mueller, T.J. 2004 Low-aspect-ratio wing aerodynamics at low Reynolds numbers. AIAA J. 42 (5), 865–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, Y., Yang, G., Huang, Y., Huang, Y., Zhuan, R. & Wu, J. 2021 Analytical model of flow-through-screen pressure drop for metal wire screens considering the effects of pore structures. Chem. Engng Sci. 229, 116037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, T.Y.-T. 1962 A wake model for free-streamline flow theory. Part 1. Fully and partially developed wake flows and cavity flows past an oblique flat plate. J. Fluid Mech. 13, 161–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, M., Patruno, L., Lo, Y.-L. & de Miranda, S. 2020 On the use of the pressure jump approach for the simulation of separated external flows around porous structures:a forward facing step. J. Wind Engng Ind. Aerodyn. 207, 104377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yih, C.-S. 1957 Stream functions in three-dimensional flows. La Houille Blanche 43, 439–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zampogna, G.A. & Gallaire, F. 2020 Effective stress jump across membranes. J. Fluid Mech. 892, A9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar