4.7 Article

Hydrodynamic characteristics of a confined circular cylinder in cross-flows

期刊

OCEAN ENGINEERING
卷 221, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2021.108567

关键词

Blockage ratio; Vortex shedding; Drag; Lift; Strouhal number; Reverse karman vortex street

资金

  1. University of Sydney

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigates the hydrodynamics of a circular cylinder in confined flows, revealing significant increases in drag coefficient and Strouhal number due to confinement. The behavior of the lift coefficient varies in laminar and turbulent flow regimes. Additionally, a reverse Karman vortex street is observed at lower Reynolds numbers with specific arrangements.
The hydrodynamics of a circular cylinder in confined flows have great significance to fundamental fluid mechanics and engineering applications. However, a major gap of knowledge exists regarding the impact of blockage on the hydrodynamic properties of the cylinder including the fluctuating lift coefficient (C-L'), mean drag coefficient (C-D) and Strouhal number (St). To fill the knowledge gap, three-dimensional numerical simulations are conducted at blockage ratios up to beta = 1/2 (where beta = D/H; D and H are the cylinder diameter and channel height respectively) and Reynolds numbers from Re = 300 to 30,000. The present study reveals that confinement causes a significant increase of C-D and St, whereas different behaviours of C-L' are observed in laminar and turbulent flow regimes. Further, a reverse Karman vortex street is observed at all blockage ratios between 1/6 and 1/2 for Reynolds numbers less than 1,000. The invert location, where the vortex trajectories originating from the top and bottom of the cylinder intersect in the wake, depends on the Reynolds number and the blockage ratio. At Reynolds numbers above 1,000, the reverse Karman vortex street does not occur, and the vortices organise themselves in a single row with an alternate arrangement in the wake.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据