4.5 Article

Twin Strouhal numbers in pressure loading of circular cylinder at high Reynolds numbers

期刊

JOURNAL OF FLUIDS AND STRUCTURES
卷 115, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS LTD- ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2022.103782

关键词

Circular cylinder; Reynolds number; Vortex shedding; Strouhal number

资金

  1. Beirens (Poujoulat Group) , France
  2. Centre Scientifique et Technique du Batiment (CSTB) , France
  3. Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales (CNES) , France
  4. LadHyX, France
  5. CNRS-Ecole polytechnique, France

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study presents a wind tunnel experiment on a large smooth circular cylinder mounted between walls. The Reynolds number range of interest is [800 000 - 2 170 000]. By analyzing the unsteady wall pressure distributions, twin Strouhal numbers corresponding to the second and fourth terms of the decomposition are detected. These terms are found to contribute to the unsteady lift on the cylinder, with the second term having the main influence and a Strouhal number similar to those found at subcritical Reynolds numbers.
We present a wind tunnel experiment on a large smooth circular cylinder mounted between walls. The Reynolds number range of interest is [800 000 - 2 170 000]. This low supercritical regime is often encountered in wind engineering applications, especially the excitation of flexible circular structures by vortex shedding. Main measurements are the unsteady wall pressure distributions around the cylinder by means of synchronized pressure taps with high resolution in time and space. By using the bi-orthogonal decom-position of this set of signals, twin Strouhal numbers are detected which correspond to the second and the fourth terms of the decomposition. These terms are found to produce the unsteady lift on the cylinder with a main contribution of the second one for which the associated Strouhal number is close to the one usually found at subcritical Reynolds numbers. (c) 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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