Physical setup showing the extent of the computational domain and the definition for the impingement angle, θ.
Comparison of the present simulations with experiments of Qu et al. 25 E: Experimental images. C: Computational images.
Illustration of the control volume employed in the identification and volume calculation for air cavities corresponding to θ = 90° (a), 15° (b), and 10° (c) jets. Similar volumes are employed for θ = 12°, 25°, and 45°.
Size distribution of subsurface air content showing the increased entrained volume at shallower angles along with larger cavity sizes (D 43/D j ). The error bars reflect the statistical uncertainty associated with these values.
Air volume time histories within the observation volume (3 cm in the streamwise direction) for all impingement angles. Due to lower volumes for the steeper impingement cases, an inset figure is added.
Cavity formation at two subsequent times outlined by streamlines to visualize the stagnation point flow.
Distance traveled by the stagnation point (L/D j ). The speed of cavity progression is approximately equal to U impact/2.
Deflection of the jet stream by the action of stagnation pressure. The redirected stream is shown schematically, superimposed on computational result corresponding to θ = 12°.
Angle of flow redirection as a function of R/D j .
For shallow impacts the jet is strongly deflected by the waves on the pool (θ = 10°). As θ is increased, the disruption of jet becomes progressively weaker until an unbroken jet core penetrates the pool (θ = 45°, 90°).
Comparison of versus Fr for each case shown in Table III .
Plunging jet cases corresponding to different impinging angles.
Description of 12° cases for assessing the scaling of cavity entrainment.
Table showing the scaling of cavity formation with Fr.
Article metrics loading...
Full text loading...