- Email: [email protected]
Mean Pressure Distributions on the Vanes and Flow Loss in the Branch in a T Pipe Junction with Different Angles
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect Energy Procedia 105 (2017) 3239 – 3244
The 8th International Conference on Applied Energy – ICAE2016
Mean pressure distributions on the vanes and flow loss in the branch in a T pipe junction with different angles Yantao Yina, Kai Chena, Xiaoyu Qiaoa, Mei Lina, Zhimin Linb, Qiuwang Wanga,* a School of Energry and Power Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, Shannxi, PR China Department Department of Mechanical Engineering, Lanzhou Jiaotong University, Lanzhou 730070, Gansu, PR China
b
Abstract Mean pressure distributions on the vanes and the flow loss in the branch duct in a T pipe junction with different angles are experimental studied. Pressure coefficient drops gradually along the wall but changes suddenly on the four vanes with angle variation. Angle variation has little influence on the mean pressure distribution on the wall. The influence of angle variation on the pressure of the four vanes is described. The maximum average pressure coefficient on the vanes is at θ=130°.
© 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). responsibility of of ICAE Selection and/or peer-reviewofunder Peer-review under responsibility the scientific committee the 8th International Conference on Applied Energy.
Keywords: Mean pressure distributions; T pipe junction; vanes; suction
1. Introduction High speed railway plays a vital role in economic development and social progress, especially in today’s China [1]. Aerodynamics problems accompanied by the speed-up of train system should be urgently resolved. Ventilation is very important in the train house and the power module. The air exchange can be described as a simplified weak suction (jet) model in a T pipe junction as the velocity of the air in the ventilating device is rather small than the high speed train. The flow characteristic of weak suction (jet) takes significant effects on the drag coefficient, heat transfer efficiency, flow resistance and so on [2]. For flow in T pipe junction, Liepsch et al. [3] presented measurements and numerical calculations of laminar flow in a plane 90° bifurcation. The influence of Reynolds number and mass flow
* Corresponding author. Tel & fax: +86-29-82665539 E-mail address: [email protected]
1876-6102 © 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 8th International Conference on Applied Energy. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.718
3240
Yantao Yin et al. / Energy Procedia 105 (2017) 3239 – 3244
ratio on the velocity filed, streamlines, local shear stress and pressure drop were exhibited. Fu et al. [4] reported a numerical study of the flows in an internal combustion engine inlet manifold. The threedimensional turbulent flows through a single branched manifold were simulated using the κ-ε model of turbulence. The flow separation in the branch was analyzed comprehensively. Costa et al. [5] reported the pressure drop for the flow of a Newtonian fluid in 90° tee junctions with sharp and round corners. It was found that rounding the corners reduced the energy losses by between 10 % and 20 %. Lu et al. [6] reported a numerical investigation on the fluctuating temperature of a mixing T pipe junction by using LES method. The present study is substantially concerned with the mean pressure distributions on the vanes and flow loss in the branch in a T pipe junction with different angles. The inlet velocity range of the cross flow is from 30-50m/s and the velocity ratio is R= ub/U0 Nomenclature Cp
pressure coefficient
Cpa
average pressure coefficient
d
hydraulic diameter of branch duct (m)
Dp
pressure coefficient variance
p
static pressure at a certain position (pa)
p0
freemstream centreline static pressure (Pa)
R
velocity ratio
U0
centreline velocity in the main duct inlet (m/s)
ub
bulk mean velocity in the branch duct (m/s)
x, y, z
cartesian coordinates
U
density (kg/m3)
θ
angle of the vanes (°)
Subscripts b
branch duct
p
pressure
pa
average pressure
2. Experimental system and procedure The experiments are conducted in an open T-shape wind tunnel (cf. [7]) with two blowers running at the same time. The main duct is a rectangle of 143.3 mm (width) ×161.1 mm (height) cross section and overall length of 2000 mm. The branch duct with square cross section of 110 mm×110 mm and overall length of 2000 mm is connected in the main duct, perpendicular to the tunnel wall, as shown in Fig. 1a. Both the main duct and the branch duct of the test section are made of acrylic glass. Fig. 1b is the detail of the vanes and the pressure taps. Four vanes are oriented in perpendicular to the main flow direction and uniformly located at the branch entrance. Each of vanes has x×y×z = 2mm×110mm×21mm and they are made of iron. The diameter of the static pressure taps on the vanes is 1mm. Another twenty-one static
Yantao Yin et al. / Energy Procedia 105 (2017) 3239 – 3244
pressure taps are spaced along the middle of the front side wall, as depicted in Fig. 1c. The coordinate system applied in this experiment is depicted in Fig. 1a and Fig. 1c. The origin is located at the center of the branch entrance. The characteristic length is determined by the hydraulic diameter of branch duct, d=110mm. Locations of the four pressure taps on the vanes at x-coordinate are -0.3d, -0.1d, 0.1d, 0.3d as shown in Fig. 1e. They are presented by P1, P2, P3, P4, respectively. Fig. 1f shows the details angle of the vanes. In the present experiment, the angle variation is in the range of 20°<θ<160°.
(a) T-junction with vanes (unit: mm)
(b) Detail of the vanes and the pressure taps (unit: mm)
(c) Pressure taps on the front side (unit: mm)
(e) Location of the pressure taps on the vanes
(f) Detail of the angle of the vanes
Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of the test section (not to scale)
3241
3242
Yantao Yin et al. / Energy Procedia 105 (2017) 3239 – 3244
The pressures along the front side wall and on the vanes are measured by two 16-channel intelligent pressure scanners (PSI 9116) with an accuracy of 0.1%. Further details on the experimental set up can be found in Ref. [7]. 3. Data reduction Some parameters are defined to describe the mean pressure distributions on the vanes and the flow loss in the branch duct in a T pipe junction with different angles. Pressure coefficient Cp and the average pressure coefficient Cpa are defined as follows, respectively: Cp
Cpa
2 p p0
(1)
UU 02 1 CP1 CP2 CP3 CP4 4
(2)
Pressure coefficient variance Dp which describes the deviation between Cp and Cpa.is defined as follow: 2
4 § 4 · 4¦ Cpi2 - ¨ ¦ Cpi ¸ ©i 1 ¹ (3) Dp = i 1 16
Flow loss 'Q is defined to measure the volume flow loss in the branch duct. By keeping the constant frequency of the two blowers in an experimental case, it is the flow difference between at a certain angle θ and at θ=90°. It is important to note that while changing the angle of the vanes, the oncoming centerline velocity U0 is influenced little according to the experimental data. Thus the volume flow loss (velocity loss or velocity ratio loss) at different angles is obtained. 4. Results and discussion All the measurement instruments had been adjusted to verify the test results and methods before the experiment started to run. Fig. 2 shows the mean pressure distribution and flow loss at U0=40m/s, R=0.13. Here 40-5.2-0.13 represents the centerline velocity in the main duct inlet, the bulk mean velocity in the branch duct and the velocity ratio, respectively. Fig. 2a depicts the global pressure distribution on the front wall and the vanes. It can be seen that the pressure coefficient drops gradually along the wall from x/d=-4.75 to x/d=-0.55, changes suddenly on the four vanes with angle variation and recovers to drop along the wall from x/d=0.55 again. The whole pressure coefficient behind the tee suction is greater than that before the suction and notably, there is peak value at x/d=2.75. This may imply the existence of the recirculating zone in the main duct. Angle variation has little influence on the mean pressure distribution on the wall. Details of local pressure coefficient on the four vanes (P1 to P4) are depicted in Fig. 2b. From the longitudinal contrast, it can be seen that: (1) Pressure coefficient in P1 increases as the increase of θ in the range of 20°<θ<120° and the increase amplitude in the range of 50°<θ<80° is very small. As the increase of θ, pressure coefficient in P1 decreases in the range of 120°<θ<160°. (2) Pressure coefficient in P2 increases as the increase of θ in the range of 20°<θ<130°, decreases as the increase of θ in the range of 130°<θ<150° while increases again at θ =160°. (3) Pressure coefficients in P3 and P4 increase as the increase of θ in the range of 20°<θ<160° except some special at θ =130° in P3.
Yantao Yin et al. / Energy Procedia 105 (2017) 3239 – 3244
Generally speaking, four pressure coefficients in the vanes increase as the increase of θ in the range of 20°<θ<120°. While as the increase of θ in the range of 120°<θ<160°, from P1 to P4, the decreasing trend of pressure coefficient weakens gradually, up to increase again at P 4. From the crosswise contrast (from P1 to P4), it is observed that as θ in the range of 20°<θ<120°, pressure coefficient first decreases and then increases. While as θ in the range of 130°<θ<160°, pressure coefficient increases all through. Notably, the pressure coefficient at θ>90° is much greater than that of θ<90° as depicted in Fig. 2b. So the average pressure coefficient and corresponding variance at θ>90° are shown in Fig. 2c. It can be seen that the pressure coefficient distribution at 90°<θ<120° (low variance) is more uniform than that at 120°<θ<160° (high variance). The average pressure coefficient first increases then decreases and increases again. There are two extreme values, one extreme large at θ=130° and another extreme small at θ=150°. In the present experimental case, the maximum average pressure coefficient is at θ=130°. Fig. 2d shows the flow loss which estimates the volume flow loss in the branch duct while modulating the angle of the vanes. By keeping the constant frequency of the two blowers, it is the flow difference between at a certain angle θ and at θ=90°. Positive value means the volume flow at a certain angle θ is greater than that at θ=90° and negative means less. It can be seen that the branch duct flow decreases sharply as the decrease of vane angle at θ<90° especially when θ<60°. The branch duct flow changes little at 90°<θ<120° but goes up slowly at 120°<θ<150°. At θ=160°, the branch duct flow goes down obviously again.
(a) Global pressure distribution
(b) Local pressure distribution
(c) Average pressure coefficient and variance
(d) Flow loss in the branch duct
Fig. 2 Mean pressure distribution and flow loss at U0=40m/s, R=0.13
3243
3244
Yantao Yin et al. / Energy Procedia 105 (2017) 3239 – 3244
5. Conclusions Mean pressure distributions on the vanes and the flow loss in the branch duct in a T pipe junction with different angles are experimental studied. The primary results are as follows: (1) Pressure coefficient drops gradually along the wall but changes suddenly on the four vanes with angle variation. The whole pressure coefficient behind the tee suction is greater than that before the suction and there is peak value at x/d=2.75. Angle variation has little influence on the mean pressure distribution on the wall. (2) Four pressure coefficients in the vanes increase as the increase of θ in the range of 20°<θ<120°. While as the increase of θ in the range of 120°<θ<160°, from P1 to P4, the decreasing trend of pressure coefficient weakens gradually, up to increase again at P4. (3) The maximum average pressure coefficient on the vanes is at θ=130°. Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge financial support for this work provided by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51376145 and 51236003). References [1] Sun Z.X., Song J.J., An Y.R., 2010, Optimization of the head shape of the CRH3 high speed train. Science China Technological Sciences, 53(12), 3356-3364. [2] Raghunathan R.S., Kim H.D., Setoguchi T., 2002, Aerodynamics of high-speed railway train. Progress in Aerospace sciences, 38(6), 469-514. [3] Liepsch D., Moravec S., Rastogi A.K., Vlachos N.S., 1982, Measurement and calculations of laminar flow in a ninety degree bifurcation. Journal of Biomechanics, 15(7), 473-485. [4] Fu H., Tindal M.J., Watkins A.P., Yianneskis M., 1992, Computation of three-dimensional turbulent flows in a pipe junction with reference to engine inlet manifolds. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, 206(4), 285-296. [5] Costa N.P., Maia R., Proenca F.M., Pinho F.T., 2006, Edge Effects on the Flow Characteristics in a 90 deg Tee Junction. Journal of Fluids Engineering, 128(6), 1204-1217. [6] Lu T., Jiang P.X., Guo Z.J., Zhang Y.W., Li H., 2010, Large-eddy simulations (LES) of temperature fluctuations in a mixing tee with/without a porous medium. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 53(21), 4458-4466. [7] Wu B, Yin Y T, Lin M, Wang L B, Zeng M and Wang Q W, Mean Pressure Distributions around a Circular Cylinder in the Branch of a T-junction with/without Vanes, Appl. Therm. Eng. 2015; 88: 82-93.
Yantao Yin is a Ph.D. candidate at the School of Energy and Power Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University. He received his bachelor’s degree from Central South University in 2012. He is currently working on heat transfer enhancement in array weak suck/jet flow.
ScienceDirect Energy Procedia 105 (2017) 3239 – 3244
The 8th International Conference on Applied Energy – ICAE2016
Mean pressure distributions on the vanes and flow loss in the branch in a T pipe junction with different angles Yantao Yina, Kai Chena, Xiaoyu Qiaoa, Mei Lina, Zhimin Linb, Qiuwang Wanga,* a School of Energry and Power Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University, Xi’an 710049, Shannxi, PR China Department Department of Mechanical Engineering, Lanzhou Jiaotong University, Lanzhou 730070, Gansu, PR China
b
Abstract Mean pressure distributions on the vanes and the flow loss in the branch duct in a T pipe junction with different angles are experimental studied. Pressure coefficient drops gradually along the wall but changes suddenly on the four vanes with angle variation. Angle variation has little influence on the mean pressure distribution on the wall. The influence of angle variation on the pressure of the four vanes is described. The maximum average pressure coefficient on the vanes is at θ=130°.
© 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). responsibility of of ICAE Selection and/or peer-reviewofunder Peer-review under responsibility the scientific committee the 8th International Conference on Applied Energy.
Keywords: Mean pressure distributions; T pipe junction; vanes; suction
1. Introduction High speed railway plays a vital role in economic development and social progress, especially in today’s China [1]. Aerodynamics problems accompanied by the speed-up of train system should be urgently resolved. Ventilation is very important in the train house and the power module. The air exchange can be described as a simplified weak suction (jet) model in a T pipe junction as the velocity of the air in the ventilating device is rather small than the high speed train. The flow characteristic of weak suction (jet) takes significant effects on the drag coefficient, heat transfer efficiency, flow resistance and so on [2]. For flow in T pipe junction, Liepsch et al. [3] presented measurements and numerical calculations of laminar flow in a plane 90° bifurcation. The influence of Reynolds number and mass flow
* Corresponding author. Tel & fax: +86-29-82665539 E-mail address: [email protected]
1876-6102 © 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Peer-review under responsibility of the scientific committee of the 8th International Conference on Applied Energy. doi:10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.718
3240
Yantao Yin et al. / Energy Procedia 105 (2017) 3239 – 3244
ratio on the velocity filed, streamlines, local shear stress and pressure drop were exhibited. Fu et al. [4] reported a numerical study of the flows in an internal combustion engine inlet manifold. The threedimensional turbulent flows through a single branched manifold were simulated using the κ-ε model of turbulence. The flow separation in the branch was analyzed comprehensively. Costa et al. [5] reported the pressure drop for the flow of a Newtonian fluid in 90° tee junctions with sharp and round corners. It was found that rounding the corners reduced the energy losses by between 10 % and 20 %. Lu et al. [6] reported a numerical investigation on the fluctuating temperature of a mixing T pipe junction by using LES method. The present study is substantially concerned with the mean pressure distributions on the vanes and flow loss in the branch in a T pipe junction with different angles. The inlet velocity range of the cross flow is from 30-50m/s and the velocity ratio is R= ub/U0 Nomenclature Cp
pressure coefficient
Cpa
average pressure coefficient
d
hydraulic diameter of branch duct (m)
Dp
pressure coefficient variance
p
static pressure at a certain position (pa)
p0
freemstream centreline static pressure (Pa)
R
velocity ratio
U0
centreline velocity in the main duct inlet (m/s)
ub
bulk mean velocity in the branch duct (m/s)
x, y, z
cartesian coordinates
U
density (kg/m3)
θ
angle of the vanes (°)
Subscripts b
branch duct
p
pressure
pa
average pressure
2. Experimental system and procedure The experiments are conducted in an open T-shape wind tunnel (cf. [7]) with two blowers running at the same time. The main duct is a rectangle of 143.3 mm (width) ×161.1 mm (height) cross section and overall length of 2000 mm. The branch duct with square cross section of 110 mm×110 mm and overall length of 2000 mm is connected in the main duct, perpendicular to the tunnel wall, as shown in Fig. 1a. Both the main duct and the branch duct of the test section are made of acrylic glass. Fig. 1b is the detail of the vanes and the pressure taps. Four vanes are oriented in perpendicular to the main flow direction and uniformly located at the branch entrance. Each of vanes has x×y×z = 2mm×110mm×21mm and they are made of iron. The diameter of the static pressure taps on the vanes is 1mm. Another twenty-one static
Yantao Yin et al. / Energy Procedia 105 (2017) 3239 – 3244
pressure taps are spaced along the middle of the front side wall, as depicted in Fig. 1c. The coordinate system applied in this experiment is depicted in Fig. 1a and Fig. 1c. The origin is located at the center of the branch entrance. The characteristic length is determined by the hydraulic diameter of branch duct, d=110mm. Locations of the four pressure taps on the vanes at x-coordinate are -0.3d, -0.1d, 0.1d, 0.3d as shown in Fig. 1e. They are presented by P1, P2, P3, P4, respectively. Fig. 1f shows the details angle of the vanes. In the present experiment, the angle variation is in the range of 20°<θ<160°.
(a) T-junction with vanes (unit: mm)
(b) Detail of the vanes and the pressure taps (unit: mm)
(c) Pressure taps on the front side (unit: mm)
(e) Location of the pressure taps on the vanes
(f) Detail of the angle of the vanes
Fig. 1 Schematic diagram of the test section (not to scale)
3241
3242
Yantao Yin et al. / Energy Procedia 105 (2017) 3239 – 3244
The pressures along the front side wall and on the vanes are measured by two 16-channel intelligent pressure scanners (PSI 9116) with an accuracy of 0.1%. Further details on the experimental set up can be found in Ref. [7]. 3. Data reduction Some parameters are defined to describe the mean pressure distributions on the vanes and the flow loss in the branch duct in a T pipe junction with different angles. Pressure coefficient Cp and the average pressure coefficient Cpa are defined as follows, respectively: Cp
Cpa
2 p p0
(1)
UU 02 1 CP1 CP2 CP3 CP4 4
(2)
Pressure coefficient variance Dp which describes the deviation between Cp and Cpa.is defined as follow: 2
4 § 4 · 4¦ Cpi2 - ¨ ¦ Cpi ¸ ©i 1 ¹ (3) Dp = i 1 16
Flow loss 'Q is defined to measure the volume flow loss in the branch duct. By keeping the constant frequency of the two blowers in an experimental case, it is the flow difference between at a certain angle θ and at θ=90°. It is important to note that while changing the angle of the vanes, the oncoming centerline velocity U0 is influenced little according to the experimental data. Thus the volume flow loss (velocity loss or velocity ratio loss) at different angles is obtained. 4. Results and discussion All the measurement instruments had been adjusted to verify the test results and methods before the experiment started to run. Fig. 2 shows the mean pressure distribution and flow loss at U0=40m/s, R=0.13. Here 40-5.2-0.13 represents the centerline velocity in the main duct inlet, the bulk mean velocity in the branch duct and the velocity ratio, respectively. Fig. 2a depicts the global pressure distribution on the front wall and the vanes. It can be seen that the pressure coefficient drops gradually along the wall from x/d=-4.75 to x/d=-0.55, changes suddenly on the four vanes with angle variation and recovers to drop along the wall from x/d=0.55 again. The whole pressure coefficient behind the tee suction is greater than that before the suction and notably, there is peak value at x/d=2.75. This may imply the existence of the recirculating zone in the main duct. Angle variation has little influence on the mean pressure distribution on the wall. Details of local pressure coefficient on the four vanes (P1 to P4) are depicted in Fig. 2b. From the longitudinal contrast, it can be seen that: (1) Pressure coefficient in P1 increases as the increase of θ in the range of 20°<θ<120° and the increase amplitude in the range of 50°<θ<80° is very small. As the increase of θ, pressure coefficient in P1 decreases in the range of 120°<θ<160°. (2) Pressure coefficient in P2 increases as the increase of θ in the range of 20°<θ<130°, decreases as the increase of θ in the range of 130°<θ<150° while increases again at θ =160°. (3) Pressure coefficients in P3 and P4 increase as the increase of θ in the range of 20°<θ<160° except some special at θ =130° in P3.
Yantao Yin et al. / Energy Procedia 105 (2017) 3239 – 3244
Generally speaking, four pressure coefficients in the vanes increase as the increase of θ in the range of 20°<θ<120°. While as the increase of θ in the range of 120°<θ<160°, from P1 to P4, the decreasing trend of pressure coefficient weakens gradually, up to increase again at P 4. From the crosswise contrast (from P1 to P4), it is observed that as θ in the range of 20°<θ<120°, pressure coefficient first decreases and then increases. While as θ in the range of 130°<θ<160°, pressure coefficient increases all through. Notably, the pressure coefficient at θ>90° is much greater than that of θ<90° as depicted in Fig. 2b. So the average pressure coefficient and corresponding variance at θ>90° are shown in Fig. 2c. It can be seen that the pressure coefficient distribution at 90°<θ<120° (low variance) is more uniform than that at 120°<θ<160° (high variance). The average pressure coefficient first increases then decreases and increases again. There are two extreme values, one extreme large at θ=130° and another extreme small at θ=150°. In the present experimental case, the maximum average pressure coefficient is at θ=130°. Fig. 2d shows the flow loss which estimates the volume flow loss in the branch duct while modulating the angle of the vanes. By keeping the constant frequency of the two blowers, it is the flow difference between at a certain angle θ and at θ=90°. Positive value means the volume flow at a certain angle θ is greater than that at θ=90° and negative means less. It can be seen that the branch duct flow decreases sharply as the decrease of vane angle at θ<90° especially when θ<60°. The branch duct flow changes little at 90°<θ<120° but goes up slowly at 120°<θ<150°. At θ=160°, the branch duct flow goes down obviously again.
(a) Global pressure distribution
(b) Local pressure distribution
(c) Average pressure coefficient and variance
(d) Flow loss in the branch duct
Fig. 2 Mean pressure distribution and flow loss at U0=40m/s, R=0.13
3243
3244
Yantao Yin et al. / Energy Procedia 105 (2017) 3239 – 3244
5. Conclusions Mean pressure distributions on the vanes and the flow loss in the branch duct in a T pipe junction with different angles are experimental studied. The primary results are as follows: (1) Pressure coefficient drops gradually along the wall but changes suddenly on the four vanes with angle variation. The whole pressure coefficient behind the tee suction is greater than that before the suction and there is peak value at x/d=2.75. Angle variation has little influence on the mean pressure distribution on the wall. (2) Four pressure coefficients in the vanes increase as the increase of θ in the range of 20°<θ<120°. While as the increase of θ in the range of 120°<θ<160°, from P1 to P4, the decreasing trend of pressure coefficient weakens gradually, up to increase again at P4. (3) The maximum average pressure coefficient on the vanes is at θ=130°. Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge financial support for this work provided by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51376145 and 51236003). References [1] Sun Z.X., Song J.J., An Y.R., 2010, Optimization of the head shape of the CRH3 high speed train. Science China Technological Sciences, 53(12), 3356-3364. [2] Raghunathan R.S., Kim H.D., Setoguchi T., 2002, Aerodynamics of high-speed railway train. Progress in Aerospace sciences, 38(6), 469-514. [3] Liepsch D., Moravec S., Rastogi A.K., Vlachos N.S., 1982, Measurement and calculations of laminar flow in a ninety degree bifurcation. Journal of Biomechanics, 15(7), 473-485. [4] Fu H., Tindal M.J., Watkins A.P., Yianneskis M., 1992, Computation of three-dimensional turbulent flows in a pipe junction with reference to engine inlet manifolds. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, 206(4), 285-296. [5] Costa N.P., Maia R., Proenca F.M., Pinho F.T., 2006, Edge Effects on the Flow Characteristics in a 90 deg Tee Junction. Journal of Fluids Engineering, 128(6), 1204-1217. [6] Lu T., Jiang P.X., Guo Z.J., Zhang Y.W., Li H., 2010, Large-eddy simulations (LES) of temperature fluctuations in a mixing tee with/without a porous medium. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, 53(21), 4458-4466. [7] Wu B, Yin Y T, Lin M, Wang L B, Zeng M and Wang Q W, Mean Pressure Distributions around a Circular Cylinder in the Branch of a T-junction with/without Vanes, Appl. Therm. Eng. 2015; 88: 82-93.
Yantao Yin is a Ph.D. candidate at the School of Energy and Power Engineering, Xi’an Jiaotong University. He received his bachelor’s degree from Central South University in 2012. He is currently working on heat transfer enhancement in array weak suck/jet flow.