FYFD

Tag: numerical simulation

  • The Structure of the Blue Whirl

    The Structure of the Blue Whirl

    Several years ago, researchers discovered a new type of flame, the blue whirl. Now computational simulations have helped them untangle the complex structure of this clean-burning flame. Their work shows that the blue whirl is made up of three types of flames, which meet to form a fourth.

    The conical base of the whirl is a fuel-rich flame in which the fuel and oxygen are initially well-mixed. Above that is a diffusion flame, where the fuel and oxygen are initially separate and the flame’s ability to burn is limited by how readily the two mix. Along the sides of the blue whirl is a third flame type, visible only as a faint wisp. Like the first flame, this one is premixed, but it contains much less fuel than oxygen. Finally, those three flames meet in the bright blue ring of the whirl, where the ratio of fuel and oxygen is just right to burn the fuel completely. (Image and research credit: J. Chung et al.; via Science News; submitted by Kam-Yung Soh)

  • Featured Video Play Icon

    Shear and Convection in Turbulence

    In nature, we often find turbulence mixed with convection, meaning that part of the flow is driven by temperature variation. Think thunderstorms, wildfires, or even the hot, desiccating winds of a desert. To better understand the physics of these phenomena, researchers simulated turbulence between two moving boundaries: one hot and one cold. This provides a combination of shear (from the opposing motion of the two boundaries) and convection (from the temperature-driven density differences).

    Please note that, despite the visual similarity, these simulations are not showing fire. There’s no actual combustion or chemistry here. Instead, the meandering orange streaks you see are simply warmer areas of turbulent flow, just as the blue ones are cooler areas. The shape and number of streaks are important, though, because they help researchers understand similar structures that occur in our planet’s atmosphere — and which might, under the wrong circumstances, help drive wildfires and other convective flows. (Image, research, and video credit: A. Blass et al.)

  • Featured Video Play Icon

    Landings Beyond Earth

    With planning for manned and unmanned missions to the Moon, Mars, and many asteroids underway, engineers are using numerical simulations to understand how spacecraft thrusters interact with planetary surfaces. Most practical data for this problem comes from the Apollo program and is of limited use for current missions. Recreating a Martian landing on Earth isn’t straightforward, either, given our higher gravity. Thus, supercomputers and numerical simulation are the best available tool for understanding and predicting how the plumes from a spacecraft’s thrusters will interact with a surface and what kind of blowback the spacecraft will need to withstand. (Video credit: U. Michigan Engineering; research credit: Y. Yao et al.; submission by Jesse C.)

  • Featured Video Play Icon

    Simulating Better Breaking Waves

    In the ocean, breaking waves trap air into bubbles that then cluster into foam, but conventional simulations don’t capture this foaminess. For bubbles to cluster into foam, there has to be a force preventing — or at least delaying — their coalescence. Typically, this is caused by impurities in the water that help lower the surface tension and thereby lengthen the bubbles’ lifespans. When these features get added to simulation models, bubbles begin to cluster and breaking waves become foamy. (Image and video credit: P. Karnakov et al.)

  • Contrails From 4 Engines

    Contrails From 4 Engines

    The wingtip vortices of aircraft provide a veritable cornucopia of gorgeous imagery. There’s something inherently fascinating about these vortices that stretch behind moving aircraft. But four-engine aircraft add an extra twist to the imagery, as seen here.

    With four engines, these aircraft produce four separate contrails, each of which acts like a streakline for the flow behind the wing. So what we see in these images is not the wingtip vortices themselves, but what their effect is on flow moving across different parts of the wing.

    Nearby vortices influence one another, and one of the earliest models of aircraft physics takes advantage of this by modeling the wing itself as a series of vortices. Odd as it sounds, such models are quite good for capturing the basic flow physics behind a finite wing.

    Using one of these models, Joseph Straccia explored the physics of a 4-engine aircraft’s wake (Image 4), predicting that the outboard engine contrails should initially move outward before getting rolled up and inward by the wingtip vortices. That’s exactly what we see in these images, particularly Image 1. The inboard contrails undergo less deflection, as expected since they are further from the wingtips. (Image credits: aircraft and contrails – JPC Van Heijst, J. Willems, and E. Karakas; modeling and submission – J. Straccia)

  • Undulating Keeps Flying Snakes Steady

    Undulating Keeps Flying Snakes Steady

    Flying snakes undulate through the air as they glide. But, unlike on land, these wiggles aren’t for propulsion. A new study shows instead that they are key to the snake staying stable in flight.

    Upon take-off, a flying snake flattens its body, forming a wing-like shape that helps them generate lift and control drag. But while they glide, they also slither and pitch their tail.

    Researchers recorded more than 150 flights by live snakes, then used that data to construct their own digital snake. The model could fly like a real snake or be tested without undulations to see what would happen. The researchers discovered that, without that mid-air slithering, the snake quickly lost control and rolled to the side. (Image and research credit: I. Yeaton et al.; via NYTimes; submitted by Kam-Yung Soh)

  • Shedding Light on Martian Dust Storms

    Shedding Light on Martian Dust Storms

    In 2018, Mars was enveloped by a global dust storm that lasted for months. Although such storms had been seen before, the 2018 storm offered an unprecedented opportunity for observation from five orbiting spacecraft and two operating landers. As researchers comb through that data, they’re gaining new insights into the mechanisms that drive these extreme events.

    At NASA Ames, a team of researchers used observations of dust columns as input to a simulation of Mars’ global climate, then watched as the digital storm unfolded. Simulations like these have an important advantage over observations: the simulations allow scientists to track the transport of dust from one region to another.

    That dust tracking is critical for some of the team’s results. They found feedback patterns between dust lifting and deposition in different regions. For example, early in the storm dust was largely supplied from the Arabia/Sabaea regions, but once that dust was deposited in the Tharsis region, it kicked off a massive lifting event from Tharsis that put twice as much dust into the atmosphere as had landed there. Later, dust deposited back in Arabia by the Tharsis lofting generated new dust uplifts. As long as more dust got lifted than deposited, the intense storms continued. (Image credits: NASA, T. Bertrand/A. Kling/NASA Ames; research credit: T. Bertrand et al.; see also JGR Planets and AGU; submitted by Kam-Yung Soh)

  • When Shear Meets Slip

    When Shear Meets Slip

    One of the classic concepts students learn early in their fluids education is the no-slip condition. In essence, this idea says that friction between a solid object — say, a wall — and the fluid immediately next to it is such that no movement is possible where they meet. The fluid cannot “slip” along the surface, hence “no-slip”. It’s a simple concept, but one that can create a lot of complexity in practice.

    Imagine, for example, a fluid sandwiched between two surfaces: one stationary and one moving at a constant speed. This movement creates a shear flow, in which the velocity of the fluid varies from the speed of the moving plate all the way down to zero, the speed of the stationary plate. If we placed a little platelet in the middle of this flow, we’d expect it to rotate because of the faster flow on one side.

    But a new paper finds something rather different, at least when considering an extremely small nanoplatelet. With a tiny enough plate, individual molecules can slip along the surface, and when that happens, instead of rotating, the nanoplatelet aligns itself with the flow. That alignment means the added particle would disturb the flow less, creating a lower viscosity and better flowability. (Image and research credit: C. Kamal et al.; submitted by Simon G.)

  • Unifying Sediment Transport Theory

    Unifying Sediment Transport Theory

    On windy days, streaks of snowflakes snake in the air above a mountaintop snowfield. And when snorkeling in the surf, you can watch the inbound waves sculpt underwater ripples in the sand. Both are examples of sediment transport, and scientists have struggled to understand why the physics of these grains seems to differ between air and water. We observe certain behaviors, like saltation, in air and very different behaviors for grains underwater.

    One of the key differences is how much erosion occurs for a given amount of shear. In air, the relationship is linear; double the shear stress and you double the sediment transport rate. But in water, the relationship is nonlinear, meaning a small change in the shear stress can have a much larger effect on the rate of transport.

    A new study suggests that these differences are really only skin deep. Through detailed simulations, the researchers showed that what really matters is the energy dissipation caused by collisions between grains. Whether the medium is air or water, there are two important regions in the flow: the bed region where particles experience little movement, and the overlying region where grains are energized and lifted by the flow. In this framework, the researchers found no difference in how energy is dissipated, regardless of the medium.

    So why do measured sediment transport rates vary between air and water? The authors concluded that the relationship between shear and transport rate is, indeed, nonlinear. It’s just that the wind here on Earth is too weak to reach that nonlinearity. (Image credit: snow – wisconsinpictures, sand – J. Chavez; research credit: T. Pähtz and O. Durán; via APS Physics; submitted by Kam-Yung Soh)

  • COVID-19 and Outdoor Exercise

    COVID-19 and Outdoor Exercise

    By now you’ve probably come across some blog posts and news articles about a new pre-print study looking at the aerodynamics of running and the potential exposure to exhaled droplets. And you may also have seen articles questioning the accuracy and validity of such simulations. I’ve had several readers submit questions about this, so I dug into both the research and the criticisms, and here are my thoughts:

    Is this study scientifically valid?

    I’ve seen a number of complaints that since this paper hasn’t been peer-reviewed, we shouldn’t trust anything about it. That seems like an unreasonable overreaction to me considering how many studies receive press attention prior to their actual peer-reviewed publication. This is not a random CFD simulation produced by someone who just downloaded a copy of ANSYS Fluent. This work comes from a well-established group of engineers specializing in sports aerodynamics, and long-time readers will no doubt recognize some of their previous publications. Over the past decade, Blocken and his colleagues have become well-known for detailed experimental and simulation work that indicates larger aerodynamic effects in slipstreams than what we generally recognize.

    In this paper, they lay out previous (biological) studies related to SARS and droplet exhalation; they use those papers and several wind tunnel studies to validate computational models of droplet evaporation and runner aerodynamics; and then they use those inputs to simulate how a cloud of exhaled droplets from one runner affects someone running alongside, behind, or in a staggered position relative to the first runner.

    In other words, their work includes all the components one would expect of a scientific study, and it makes scientifically justifiable assumptions with regard to its methods. (That’s not, mind you, to say that no one can disagree with some of those choices, but that’s true of plenty of peer-reviewed work as well.) All in all, yes, this is a scientifically valid study, even if it has not yet undergone formal peer-review*.

    Can simulations actually tell us anything about virus transmission?

    One complaint I’ve seen from both biologists and engineers is that simulations like these don’t actually capture the full physics and biology involved in virus transmission. While I agree with that general sentiment, I would point out two important facts:

    1) Blocken et al. acknowledge that this is not a virology study and confine their scientific results to looking at what happens physically to droplets when two people are moving relative to one another. Whether those droplets can transmit disease or not is a question left to biological researchers.

    2) Most medical and biological research also does not account for the physics of droplet transmission and transport. For the past century, this research has focused almost exclusively on droplet sizes, with the assumption that large droplets fall quickly and small droplets persist a little longer. To my knowledge, some of the only work done on the actual physics of the turbulent cloud produced by coughing or sneezing comes from Lydia Bourouiba’s lab at MIT. And, to me, one of the fundamental conclusions from her work is that droplets (especially small ones) can persist a lot longer and farther than previously assumed. Can those droplets facilitate transmission of COVID-19? The general consensus I’ve seen expressed by medical experts is no, but, to my knowledge, that is based on opinion and assumption, not on an actual scientific study.

    The bottom line

    In my opinion, there’s a big disconnect right now between the medical/biological community and the engineering community. To truly capture the physics and biology of COVID-19 transmission requires the expertise and cooperation of both. Right now both sides are making potentially dangerous assertions.

    Honestly, based on what I know about aerodynamics, I am personally skeptical as to whether 6 ft of physical separation is truly enough; whether it is or not seems to depend on how transmissible the novel coronavirus is through small droplets, which, again, to my knowledge, is unestablished.

    Should we leave more distance than 6ft between us when exercising outdoors? Absolutely. Aerodynamically, it makes perfect sense that following in someone’s slipstream would put you inside their droplet cloud, which needs time and space to disperse. Personally, I’ve sidestepped the question entirely by doing all my cycling indoors while quarantined.

    tl;dr: There are a lot of open questions right now about COVID-19 transmission and what qualifies as safe distancing, but it’s smarter to err on the side of more distancing. Don’t hang close to others when running or cycling outdoors.

    (Image and research credit: B. Blocken et al.; submitted by Corky W. and Wendy H.)

    *I will add that, with my training, I have and do occasionally peer-review studies such as this one, and I read the full paper with the same sort of critical eye I would turn to a paper I was asked to review.