Three-Dimensional Buoyant Turbulent Flows in a Scaled Model, Slot-Ventilated, Livestock Confinement Facility
Date
Authors
Major Professor
Advisor
Committee Member
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Authors
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Since 1905, the Department of Agricultural Engineering, now the Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering (ABE), has been a leader in providing engineering solutions to agricultural problems in the United States and the world. The department’s original mission was to mechanize agriculture. That mission has evolved to encompass a global view of the entire food production system–the wise management of natural resources in the production, processing, storage, handling, and use of food fiber and other biological products.
History
In 1905 Agricultural Engineering was recognized as a subdivision of the Department of Agronomy, and in 1907 it was recognized as a unique department. It was renamed the Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering in 1990. The department merged with the Department of Industrial Education and Technology in 2004.
Dates of Existence
1905–present
Historical Names
- Department of Agricultural Engineering (1907–1990)
Related Units
- College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (parent college)
- College of Engineering (parent college)
- Department of Industrial Education and Technology, (merged, 2004)
Journal Issue
Is Version Of
Versions
Series
Department
Abstract
A three-dimensional turbulence model was used to determine the effects of animal-generated buoyant forces on the airflow patterns and temperature and airspeed distributions in a ceiling-slot, ventilated, swine grower facility. The model incorporated the Lam-Bremhorst turbulence model for low-Reynolds Number airflow typical of slot-ventilated, livestock facilities. The predicted results from the model were compared with experimental results from a scaled-enclosure. The predicted and measured results indicated a rather strong cross-stream recirculation zone in the chamber that resulted in substantial three-dimensional temperature distributions for moderate to highly buoyancy-affected flows. Airflow patterns were adequately predicted for Arc > 40 and J values < 0.00053. For Arc < 40 and J values > 0.00053, the visualized patterns indicated that the jet separated from the ceiling before the opposing end-wall. This discrepancy was attributed to variations in the experimental and numerical inlet flow development assumptions.
Comments
This article is from Transactions of the ASAE 35, no. 2 (1992): 671–686.