Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/fluidsengineering/article-pdf/99/4/618/5899556/618_1.

pdf by The University Of Western Australia user on 09 August 2021

REVIEW—Review of Flow Interference
Between Two Circular Cylinders in
Various Arrangements
There are infinite numbers of possible arrangements of two parallel cylinders posi-
tioned at right angles to the approaching flow direction. Of the infinite arrangements,
two distinct groups may be identified: in one group, the cylinders are in a tandem ar-
rangement, one behind the other at any longitudinal spacing; and in the second group,
the cylinders face the flow side by side at any transverse spacing. All other combina-
tions of longitudinal and transverse spacings represent staggered arrangements.
The tandem arrangement will be treated first. A critical survey of previous research
revealed some "odd" features which had been observed and overlooked by various authors.
The discontinuity of vortex shedding implies that a similar discontinuity should be
expected for the drag force on both cylinders. The measurements of the front (gap)
pressures of the downstream cylinder and the base pressures of both cylinders at various
spacings reveal a discontinuous "jump" at some critical spacing. The discontinuity
M. M. ZDRAVKOVICH is caused by the abrupt change from one stable flow pattern to another at the critical
Reader, University of Salford, spacing. A new interpretation is given for the existing data on the drag force for both
Salford, England cylinders. The effects of Reynolds number and surface roughness are treated in some
detail.
Following this, two cylinders arranged side by side to the approaching flow are con-
sidered. All the available data on measured forces are compiled together with additional
measurements in the range of intermittent changes of drag and lift forces. The bistable
nature of the asymmetric flow pattern around each cylinder produces two alternative
values of the drag force coupled with two alternative values of tlie lift force. The intro-
duction of the interference force coefficient exposes the physical origin of two different
forces experienced by the cylinders when arranged side by side.
Finally, the least reported arrangement of two staggered cylinders is reviewed. The
various arrangements are grouped into classes according to the sign of the lift force, or
whether the drag force is greater or less than that for a single cylinder. The measure-
ments of drag and lift forces for various arrangements reveal two different regimes for
the lift force. In one regime, the lift force directed toward the wake of the upstream
cylinder is due to the entrainment of the flow into the fully developed wake of the up-
stream cylinder. The lift force in this regime reaches a maximum value when the
downstream cylinder is near to the upstream wake boundary. In the second regime, at
very small spacings, the lift force becomes very large due to an intense gap flow which
displaces the wake of the upstream cylinder. The maximum lift force occurs with the
downstream cylinder near to the horizontal axis of the upstream cylinder. A discon-
tinuity in the lift force for some staggered arrangements is found and attributed to the
bistable nature of the gap flow.

Introduction search which has been carried out mainly to solve immediate
practical problems. Practical applications stimulated research
The history of investigations of the flow around two circular but changed with time and appeared in various areas of engi-
cylinders is an example of unsystematic and fragmentary re- neering and science. Applications started in aeronautical engi-
Contributed by the Fluids Engineering Division for publication in the neering (twin struts to support wings), moved to hydronautical
JOURNAL OF FLOIDS ENGINEERING. Manuscript received at ASME Head- engineering (periscope, snorkel and radar mast vibrations), civil
quarters, September 12, 1977. engineering (twin chimney stacks in wind and jetties and off-

618 / DECEMBER 1977 Transactions of the ASME

Copyright © 1977 by ASME
 shore structures in high seas), electrical engineering (twin-con-
ductor transmission line vibration), mechanical engineering (in TWICE RESISTANCE OF SINGLE WIRE
connection with heat exchanger tube vibrations) and chemical
engineering (pipe-rack forces). DIAMETERS" OF SEPARATION
It is a common practice to assume that two cylinders should
behave in a flow in a similar, or even an identical manner, to a
single cylinder. This assumption is justified only when the two
cylinders are sufficiently apart. The interference between two
cylinders at close proximity, however, drastically changes the
flow around them and produces unexpected forces and pressure
distributions, and intensifies or suppresses vortex shedding.

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/fluidsengineering/article-pdf/99/4/618/5899556/618_1.pdf by The University Of Western Australia user on 09 August 2021
These changes of the flow pattern are systematically described WIRES IN CONTACT
and analyzed in the present review.
All the possible arrangements of two cylinders are grouped R e = 9-72 x IO'
into three sections. Tandem arrangements are treated first,
followed by the side-by-side arrangements and, at the end,
staggered arrangements.
All the possible flows around two circular cylinders may be
classified in two categories: with and without interference.
These two categories are divided by an interference boundary. 5 IO 15 20° ANGLE OF STAGGER
The interference may be either partial, when only one cylinder Fig. 1 Combined drag of two wires [1]
is affected, or combined, when both mutually interfere. It will
be shown when the interference is weak and when it is strong.

Tandem Arrangement
Early Force Measurements. The first interest in flow around
two circular cylinders arranged one behind the other relative
to the wind, began in aeronautical engineering in the early era
of biplanes. The common use of cylindrical and later stream-
lined struts to connect two wings stimulated the investigations.
Pannell, Griffiths and Coales [l] 1 reported the results of
force measurements on two parallel "circular wires." The dis-
tance between the centers of the wires varied from 1 dia (wires
in contact) to 6 dia. The combined drag force was measured
for both wires exposed to the wind in tandem and also staggered
to the wind at various angles up to 20 deg. The angle of stagger
was that between the line joining the centers of the two wires
and the wind direction. The experimental results are reproduced
in Fig. 1. Pannell, Griffiths, and Coales stated "It is interesting
to notice that, in the case of the circular wires, the minimum
drag on two wires in contact is only 40 percent of the drag on
one wire alone." This was due to an improved "streamlining"
of the flow pattern for the latter case.
An additional feature of the drag force is also evident from
Fig. 1. The increments in drag force for the spacings from 1 to
2 dia, 2 to 3 and 3 to 4, increased more and more, respectively,
while the corresponding increments between 4 and 6 dia are very
much smaller. These two sets of results indicate that two dif-
'Numbers in brackets designate References at end of paper.
ferent flow patterns might be responsible for that change in the
drag increments. It seems that the authors were puzzled by the
very large increment between the spacings of 3 and 4 dia be-
cause they introduced, only in that range, an intermediate
spacing of 3y 2 dia marked with (!) in Fig. 1.
Biermann and Herrnstein [2] reported their force measure-
ments from the 7 ft X 10 ft (2.1 X 3.0 m) wind tunnel. They
extended the range of spacings between the centers of cylinders
up to 9 dia. The drag force was measured separately for each
cylinder. They introduced an "interference drag coefficient"
defined as the difference between the drag coefficient measured
on one of the cylinders in tandem and the drag coefficient of the
single cylinder at the same Reynolds number. The combined
interference drag was obtained by adding the interference drag
coefficients of both cylinders in tandem.
The experimental results are reproduced in Fig. 2. The
minimum interference drag coefficient of the upstream cylinder,
curves A, coincides with the "kink" of the interference drag
coefficient of the downstream one, curves B. The authors
apparently tried to locate the position of the minimum inter-
ference drag coefficient of the upstream cylinder for Re = 1.63
X 105 by adding more experimental points in the range be-
tween 2V2 and 4 dia, as seen in Fig. 2. However, they did
not try to determine more precisely the kink on the interfer-
ence drag coefficient curve for the downstream cylinder. They
calculated, instead, the combined interference drag coefficient;
curves C are shown in Fig. 2 with dotted lines. The kink is
more pronounced for the combined interference drag coefficient,

"Nomenclature-

spacing
CD = drag coefficient the cylinders' centers
D = outer diameter of cylinder
CDO = drag coefficient for single T/D =
transverse spacing ratio
/ = frequency of vortex shedding
cylinder U =
local velocity
L = longitudinal spacing be-
CD — CDO = interference drag coefficient V or Um =
free stream velocity
tween cylinders' centers
CL = lift coefficient longitudinal spacing ratio X/D =
nondimensional longitudi-
L/D
Cp = pressure coefficient nal coordinate
= base pressure coefficient at R or R6 Reynolds number, I —• J Y/D = nondimensional transverse
9 = 180 deg coordinate
Cpa = gap pressure coefficient at /D a = angle of stagger
8 = Strouhal number G = circumferential angle on the
G = 0 deg for down- V
stream cylinder at small transverse spacing between cylinder

Journal of Fluids Engineering DECEMBER 1977 / 619

which is an indication that both cylinders contribute to its
occurrence.
The two flow patterns, inferred from Fig. 1, affect the inter-
ference drag coefficients of two cylinders in differing ways. The
flow pattern for spacings less than about 3Vs dia tends to de-
crease the interference drag of the upstream cylinder to a mini-
mum at about 3'A dia, and to increase the interference drag
of the downstream cylinder up to a maximum at about 2'A
dia spacing beyond which a small decrease follows; see Fig. 2.
The second flow pattern for spacings greater than about 3y 2
dia (beyond the kink) tends to increase the interference drag of
both cylinders up to constant values (at least for the Reynolds
numbers tested).
Pressure Distributions and Velocity Profiles. Hori [3] Was the
first who measured the pressure distribution around the two
cylinders in a tandem arrangement. He carried out his measure-
ments for only three spacings: 1.2, 2.0 and 3.0 dia. The pres-
sure coefficient distribution is shown in Fig. 3 in polar coor-
dinates. The pressure distribution around the upstream cylinder
showed that only the rear part of it was affected by the presence
of the downstream cylinder. The base pressure coefficient in-
creased as the spacing of the downstream cylinder increased and,
consequently, the drag of the upstream cylinder was reduced.
A — UPSTREAM CYLINDER
B — DOWNSTREAM CYLINDER
C — COMBINED
7 8 9 L/D
SPACING RATIO
. Z Interference drag coefficient for tandem cylinders [2]
UPSTREAM CYLINDER
Fig. 3 Pressure distribution around two cylinders in staggered ar-
range ment [3]
620 / DECEMBER 1977
Hence, the decrease of the interference drag, as observed by
the previous authors, was caused by the drop of the base pres-
sure only.
The pressure distribution around the downstream cylinder
showed two unusual features. Firstly, the side facing the gap
between the cylinders had a very low negative pressure, which
was almost the same as the corresponding value of the base
pressure of the upstream cylinder. This fact is an indication
that the flow in the gap is almost stagnant.
The second unusual feature was that the negative gap pres-
sure coefficient in front of the downstream cylinder exceeded
that on the base side behind. Hence, the downstream cylinder
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/fluidsengineering/article-pdf/99/4/618/5899556/618_1.pdf by The University Of Western Australia user on 09 August 2021
experienced a negative drag - thrust force. The decrease of the
interference drag, as found by the previous authors, was caused
mainly by the corresponding increase of the gap pressure.
The two fairly flat pressure distributions in the gap and base
regions were separated by two symmetrically positioned maxi-
mums2 as seen in Fig. 3. It might be inferred from Fig. 3 that
they correspond to the reattachment of the flow separated from
the upstream cylinder. The position of these reattachment
points was symmetrical, as should be expected, and the dis-
tance between them reduced as the spacing was increased from
2 to 3; see Fig. 3.
Further measurements of the pressure distribution around
the downstream cylinder at higher Reynolds number have been
carried out by Zdravkovich and Stanhope [4]. The time-
average pressure coefficient distributions are given in Fig. 4
for six different spacings as shown. The pressure coefficient
distribution for the single cylinder at the same Reynolds number
is given for comparison. There is a remarkable grouping of curves.
All curves for small spacings up to 3V2 dia are similar among
themselves and have the same features as those found by Hori
at lower Reynolds number.
The pressure coefficient distribution for the single cylinder
and for the tandem arrangements with spacings beyond 3V2
dia form a second group of similar curves. There is only one
maximum pressure at the stagnation point and no sign of the
reattachment peaks. The curves differed among themselves
mainly due to the reduction of the stagnation pressure coeffi-
cient from 1 (single cylinder) down to —0.2 for the 5 dia spacing.
2
Note that the stagnation point on the upstream cylinder represents also a
maximum.
DOWNSTREAM CYLINDER
Transactions of the ASME
 (a)

Q-1 UfiO

-aura

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/fluidsengineering/article-pdf/99/4/618/5899556/618_1.pdf by The University Of Western Australia user on 09 August 2021
Fig. 4 Pressure distribution around downstream cylinder in vari-
ous tandem arrangements [4]

A-WAKE
I 1 n
Therefore, it may be proposed that the two flow patterns have 7 O-t 0-9 ^
two types of pressure distribution around the downstream cyl-
inder:
(i) For small spacings (up to the kink) there are two sym-
metric peaks, presumably corresponding to the reattachment
points.
(ii) For greater spacings (beyond the kink) there is a single Fig. 5 Velocity profiles across the gap and wake [4]
peak corresponding to the stagnation point.
Further insight into the two flow patterns was gained by
traversing the gap between the cylinders and the wake behind
the downstream cylinder with a hot-wire. Zdravkovich and
Stanhope [4] measured three velocity profiles across the gap
and one across the wake of the downstream cylinder. The
traversing planes were situated at 1/i, l/%, and 3/i of the gap
lengths within the gap and 1/t of the gap length behind the
downstream cylinder.
The three velocity profiles within the gap were similar to each
other for all spacings up to the 3.5 dia. They showed that
a low velocity existed in the gap. Fig. 5(a) is an example for I 3 3 4 I t I ~K> 3 0 S 0 4 0 WD
L/D = 2.5. The Wake traverse, within the same range of Fig. 6 Strouhal number behind cylinders in tandem arrangement [7]
spacings, differed from the gap traverses because the magnitude
of the velocity was considerably greater in the wake behind
the downstream cylinder.
Beyond the spacing of 3.5 dia, the gap and wake profiles Oka, Kostic, and Sikmanovic [7] measured the vortex shed-
became similar and the curves were close together; see Fig. ding frequencies behind the upstream and downstream cylinders
5(b). The change between these two different flow patterns, in the intermediate subcritical Reynolds number range. There
i.e., almost no flow in the gap versus fully developed flow ap- was no distinct vortex shedding detectable behind the upstream
proaching the downstieam cylinder, should be expected to take cylinder up to the spacing L/D = 3.8, as shown in Fig. 6. Be-
place gradually as the spacing increased. The experiments, yond that spacing, the vortex shedding suddenly appeared and
however, revealed that there was a sudden change of the flow soon reached the value found behind the single cylinder.
pattern in the gap when the spacing was increased beyond Contrary to the upstream cylinder ease, the vortex shedding
3.5 dia. In the subsequent sections this feature will be discussed was detected in the whole range of spacings behind the down-
in more detail. stream cylinder. The Strouhal number (defined as the product
of the frequency of vortex shedding and diameter divided by
Vortex Shedding. The appearance of von Karman's vortex
the velocity) continuously decreased in the range 1 < L/D < 3.8
street in the wake of a single cylinder has been well known for
from values well above the Strouhal number for a single cyl-
a long time, but whether it takes place in the wakes of two cyl-
inder down to values well below it, as seen in Fig. 6. A sudden
inders in tandem was not investigated until recently. Smoke
"jump" occurred at the same spacing for which the vortex
observations of wakes of cylinders in a tandem arrangement
shedding was first detected behind the upstream cylinder. The
at low Reynolds numbers [5] revealed that a vortex street
Strouhal number approached the value found for the single
always forms behind the downstream cylinder, but only for
cylinder at first, but beyond about 8 dia it started to decrease
spacings greater than 4 dia behind the upstream cylinder.
again.3
Thomas and Kraus [6] observed (also at low Reynolds num-
ber, Re = 62) that when the spacing of cylinders was an odd
multiple of Va of the longitudinal spacing of the vortices of the
street the contraction or cancellation of the vortex street oc- 'Ishigai, et al. [91 found the same Strouhal number behind both cylinders,
curred downstream. see Fig. 8.

Journal of Fluids Engineering DECEMBER 1977 / 621

 Novak [8] also measured the vortex shedding behind both
cylinders in tandem arrangements. The same trend was found
for the downstream cylinder but somehow (?) he did not detect
the jump in vortex shedding when the upstream cylinder com-
menced the vortex shedding. Ishigai, et al. [91, however, found
a distinct jump which will be described in detail in the next
section.
Novak [8] tried to establish the relationship between the
Strouhal numbers behind the upstream and downstream cyl-
inders and the Reynolds number. He found that the Strouhal
numbers for fixed spacings were constant in the range 0.45

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/fluidsengineering/article-pdf/99/4/618/5899556/618_1.pdf by The University Of Western Australia user on 09 August 2021
X 10' S Re S 1.4 X 10'.
Novak [10] extended his measurements to cylinders of differ-
ent diameters; the ratios were 0.5 and 2, respectively. When
the small cylinder was placed upstream of the big one, the vor-
tex shedding behind the former started from the spacing of
2.25 dia (of the big one) and, for the downstream one, from
touching onwards. The reverse arrangement showed that the
small downstream cylinder could not suppress the vortex shedding
behind the big upstream one regardless of how close the former Fig. 7 Flow visualization of tandem arrangements [9J
was. The vortex shedding behind the downstream small cyl-
inder, however, was suppressed within 7 dia behind the big one.
The Two Flow Patterns The two flow patterns, first inferred
· 2 5 , . - - - -.....- - - - - - - - - ,

~2&p~pn:~::
from the force measurements, then clearly indicated from the
corresponding pressure distribution around cylinders and the
S=!Q
velocity profiles across the gap and wake, were confirmed also
by the vortex shedding measurements. V ~ xs00
The first flow pattern does not produce vortex shedding be- 5 .5
hind the upstream cylinder and distinctly influences the vortex '20 o
shedding behind the downstream one. Therefore, it should be
expected that an elastic upstream cylinder should be less prone
to vibrations induced by vortex shedding in the range of spac-
Cpb
ings 1 sLID s 3.5 than the downstream one. In fact, the
latter should be even more prone to vortex shedding induced '15 -'5
vibrations than the single cylinder due to a wide change of
Strouhal's numbers (0.15 S S s 0.26) in this range of spacings.
This has been confirmed experimentally [11] and [12] and in
field experience [13, 14].
5
The second flow pattern produces periodic vortex shedding
·10 -1'0
behind both cylinders. The commencement of vortex shedding
behind the upstream cylinder strongly affects and synchronizes 2 3 4 5 LID
the vortex shedding behind the downstream one. Hence, both Fig.8 Strouhal number and base pressure coefficient behind cylin-
cylinders should be equally prone to flow induced vibrations due ders in tandem arrangement [91 and a single cylinder with a splitter
to vortex shedding. plate after Roshko [15]

Finally, flow visualization cine-film frames by Ishigai, et al.

[9] showed convincingly the two flow patterns. They used
heated cylinders and the Schlieren technique to reveal the struc-
ture of the flow. Reynolds numbers were from 2 X 10' to
4 X 10'. It is evident that there is no vortex shedding behind
the upstream cylinder in Fig. 7(a), (b), (c), and (d) and large
vortices can be seen in Fig. 7(e). Some kind of weak symmetric
vortices can be seen in Fig. 7(d). TheY'induce in-line vibrations
of the upstream cylinder in water [12].
Discontinuous Change of the Two Flow Patterns. Ishigai, et al.
[9] were the first who measured simultaneously the vortex
shedding behind the downstream cylinder and base pressures
behind both cylinders, as shown in Fig. 8. They covered the
range of spacings from 1 to 6 dia and reduced the base pressure
data in terms of a base-pressure coefficient (defined as the dif-
ference between the pressure measured at 180 deg on the cyl-
inders and the free-stream static pressure, divided by the free
stream dynamic pressure).
Ishigai, et al. wrote: "The existence of a critical LID is
evident in Fig. 8. The critical LID is equal to 3.8, below which
the regular velocity fluctuation is observed only behind the
downstream cylinder. When LID > 3.8, the vortex streets
are formed behind both cylinders and the vortex shedding fre-
quencies are the same." A bistable nature of the phenomenon
is also seen in Fig. 8; i.e., at the critical spacing, two different
values of Strouhal number may intermittently exist.
Ishigai, et al. compared their results with those obtained
with a splitter plate in the wake of a single cylinder, Roshko's
experiment [15]. There was a remarkable agreement in the
Strouhal number drop and the position of the critical spacing,
but also a discrepancy beyond the critical spacing. The reason
for the agreement lies in the analogous flow patterns for these
two different geometries for spacings less than critical. In the
case of two circular cylinders, the flow which separates from
the upstream cylinder reattaches to the downstream one and
this inhibits vortex shedding behind the upstream cylinder. In
the case of the circular cylinder and the splitter plate, the
flow separated from the upstream cylinder re-attaches to the
splitter plate and the vortex shedding is suppressed behind the
cylinder. Hence, in both cases, vortex shedding behind the
upstream cylinder should not be expected due to a "closed
wake" flow pattern.
Agreement should be expected for the Strouhal numbers meas-
ured behind the downstream cylinder and the splitter plate,
for spacings less than critical, because of the same separation
between the two shear layers. Abernathy and Kronauer [16]
have simulated on a computer the formation of a vortex street

622/ DECEMBER 1977 Transactions of the ASME

 developed fiom two vortex layers without taking into account
the shape of the body which generated these layers.
Finally, the "disagreement" in Strouhal numbers observed
for spacings greater than critical might be due only to different
Eeynolds numbers.4 The discontinuous change of vortex shed-
ding strongly affected the base pressure which is an indication
that a discontinuous change in flow pattern was responsible
for both. Fig. 8 shows that both base pressures decreased dis-
continuously at the critical spacing. The step-like drop of the
base pressure behind the upstream cylinder produced a similar
jump of the drag coefficient. This will be discussed in detail
in the next section.
The step-like drop of the base pressure behind the downstream
cylinder is smaller than that found behind the upstream cyl-
inder, as seen in Fig. 8. The fact that the vortex shedding
existed behind the downstream cylinder for spacings less than
critical might suggest that the jump of the drag coefficient
should be smaller than for the upstream one. To settle this
question, additional information is necessary about changes of
the gap pressure on the front side of the downstream cylinder
at the critical spacing.
Discontinuous Change of Pressure. A simultaneous measure-
ment of the base pressure behind the downstream cylinder and
that facing the gap has been carried out in Salford [17] in the
upper subcritical range. Fig. 9 shows the base and gap pressure
coefficients for three Reynolds numbers. The gap pressure coef-
ficient had the lowest value when the cylinders were in contact
and gradually increased up to the critical spacing. At the critical
spacing, the gap pressure coefficient jumped to a significantly
higher value and for the first time, exceeded the value of the
base pressure. There was a range of positions close to the critical
spacing in which the flow intermittently displayed low and high
gap pressures for some period of time. This confirmed the bi-
stable nature of phenomenon. Beyond the critical spacing, the
gap pressure continued to rise because it became a "stagnation
point" pressure. The gap pressure followed the same trend as
the base pressure of the upstream cylinder shown in Fig. 8, but
only up to the critical spacing, as should be expected. Ishigai,
et al., [9] curve for the base pressure of the upstream cylinder
showed the same trend up to the critical spacing, as seen in Fig.
8, but with an overall shift to higher Cp values.
The base pressure coefficient decreased up to the spacing of
2 dia. Above that spacing, it increased either at the same
rate as the gap pressure coefficient or at a greater rate up to
the critical spacing. There was a discontinuous decrease of
the base pressure coefficient at the critical spacing. Further
increase of spacing brought little change of the base pressure
coefficient. By comparing the curves of the measured base
pressme at the three Reynolds numbers shown in Fig. 9 with
the corresponding curve in Fig. 8 it is evident that they are not
similar. Two additional measurements have been carried out
[17] for Re = 4.0 X IO4 and 2.5 X 104. The results for the
first one were similar to those in Fig. 9 and the second set just
started to show some resemblance to the curve in Fig. 8. This
Reynolds number effect will be discussed in detail in the next
section.
The critical spacing showed a dependence on the Reynolds
number. Fig. 9 shows the observed critical spacings at the
three Reynolds numbers. The critical spacing was below L/D
= 3.5 for the lowest Reynolds numbei, equal to 3.5 for the
Reynolds number 8.3 X 104 and above L/D = 3.5 for the
highest Reynolds number. These results are in agreement with
the position of the kinks shown in Fig. 2 at the same Reynolds
numbers. However, the critical spacing found by Ishigai, et al.
4
Roshko's experiments were conducted in the upper subcritical range while
Ishigai, et al. were in the intermediate subcritical range.
Journal of Fluids Engineering
gap
-CM
-0-8 Cpbase
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/fluidsengineering/article-pdf/99/4/618/5899556/618_1.pdf by The University Of Western Australia user on 09 August 2021
m O 5-8 x IO
V V 8'3 X IO 4
D I I x IO"
Fig. 9 Base and gap pressure coefficients of the downstream cylinder
[9] at lower Reynolds number is not in agreement with these
results. More research is necessary to clarify this anomaly.
The drag coefficient is proportional to the difference of the
gap and base pressure. The difference between the two coeffi-
cients, as seen in Fig. 9, rapidly decreases in the range between
1 and 2 dia spacing. Consequently, the negative drag is rapidly
diminished as observed in Fig. 2. In the next range of spac-
ings, between 2 and 3 dia, the two coefficients either change
in the same rate, as seen in Fig. 9, or the base pressure coef-
ficient increases faster than the gap pressure coefficient. The
consequences are that the drag coefficient does not change
for the former or starts to decrease for the latter, as found in
Fig. 2. Hence the kink on the drag curve is caused by the greater
rate of increase of the base pressure over the gap pressure for
spacings greater than 2.5 dia at the stated Reynolds numbers.
The discontinuous jumps of the gap and base pressure coeffi-
cients at the critical spacing in the opposite directions cause a
corresponding discontinuous jump of the drag coefficient which
has not been shown in Fig. 2. This will be "corrected" in the
next portion of this paper.
Finally, beyond the critical spacing, the gap pressure coeffi-
cient has a slightly higher rate of increase than the base pres-
sure coefficient. The consequence is further increase of the
drag coefficient at a slower rate as found in Fig. 2.
The pressure coefficients were also measured [17] on both
sides of the downstream cylinder (90 deg from the stagnation
point). Both side pressure coefficients also jumped from —0.8 to
—1.4 at the critical spacing. It has been observed that pressures
measured on opposite sides were not the same for spacings less
than critical, but beyond the critical one, they became equal.
This indicated that the symmetry of the flow was improved
for the latter.
The discontinuous jump of two reattachment points into a
single stagnation point was also observed [17]. Fig. 10 shows
the position of the reattachment points as an angle along the
cylinder surface measured from the stagnation point. Four
different sets of measurements of pressure distribution around
the downstream cylinder were used to compile Fig. 10. The
three different Reynolds numbers showed the same trend. There
was an ultimate position of the reattachment points near to
the critical spacing, beyond which both points abruptly merged
into a single stagnation point at 0 deg.
Hence it may be summarized that at the critical spacing
the discontinuous changeover of the two flow patterns caused:
(i) Upstream cylinder:
(a) commencement of vortex shedding,
DECEMBER 1977 / 623
 (b) drop of the base-pressure coefficient, and
(c) jump of the drag coefficient.
O ISHIGAI ET AL
(ii) Downstream cylinder: O ZDRAVKOVICH

(a) disappearance of the reattachment points on the front X KOSTIC ET AL

side + HOR1

(6) drop of the base and side pressure coefficients

(c) jump in the vortex shedding frequency
(d) jump of the gap pressure and drag coefficients.
Drag Coefficient and Reynolds Number Effects. A variety of

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/fluidsengineering/article-pdf/99/4/618/5899556/618_1.pdf by The University Of Western Australia user on 09 August 2021
measurements of drag forces on two circular cylinders in tandem
arrangement have been carried out by various authors at differ-
ent Reynolds numbers. Practical engineering problems, like
the twin chimney stacks and twin conductor lines in wind,
prompted research only for the spacing relevant to the par-
ticular application and for the staggered arrangements adjacent
to it. Some examples of these measurements will be given L/D
through three groups of papers. Counihan [18] carried out Fig. 10 Position of the reattachment point on the downstream cylin-
research on flow about smooth cylinders and stranded cables der [17]
but confined himself to only two spacings, 10.7 and 16 dia,
for two cylinders in tandem. Maekawa [19] tested only three
types of "conductors" at L/D = 8, but the Reynolds number
range covered subcritical and supercritical flow regimes. Price
[20] presented data for smooth cylinders at L/D = 5.0, 9.0
and 19.5 and stranded cables at L/D = 8 and 25.4 dia. He
also included the effect of turbulence on the drag force, but
confined himself to the downstream cylinder only. All these
results can be reproduced as single points in the plot of the drag
coefficient, CD, versus the spacing L/D.
Other authors covered a wide range of spacings in a narrow
range of Reynolds numbers. Cooper and Wardlaw [21] ex-
tended the range of spacings up to 50 dia for the Reynolds
number 5 X 104 only. Suzuki, et al. [22] calculated the drag
coefficients for both cylinders up to L/D = 11 from the pressure
distribution measurements at Reynolds number 2.3 X 10s only.
Tanida, et al. [23] measured the drag forces on both cylinders
towed in water up to L/D = 20 for the Reynolds numbers
equal to 80 and 2300. It is interesting to note that none of these
authors found the kink on the curve of the drag coefficient for
the downstream cylinder.
Nagai and Kurata [24] reproduced Biermann and Herrn-
stein's [2] curves from Hoerner's [25] book, but presented their
results without the kink for the downstream cylinder, and with- WMMANN ET AL
out the minimum for the upstream cylinder (!). Kostic and 0 WARDLAW AND COOPER
Oka [26] found the kink for the downstream cylinder but O SUZUKI I T AL
missed the minimum on the curve of the upstream cylinder TANIDA ET AL
at Re = 1.3 X 104, 2.6 X 104 and 4 X 104. The existence of Z IBRAVKOVICH
the kink on the curve of the downstream cylinder drag was H BOB I
e COUNIHAN
carefully verified at Salford [27] and found not only for strictly p PRICE
two dimensional flow, but also for finite cylinders with a free (FULL SYMSOLS- UPSTREAM
end (length to diameter ratio was 8), and even when a third CYLINDER)

cylinder was placed behind the second (monitored) one.

Finally, there was a third group of authors who tried to cover
a whole range of spacings within a Reynolds number range as
wide as possible. First systematic measurements of the drag
forces were reported by Wardlaw and Cooper [28] on smooth
and stranded twin conductors at 6 Reynolds numbers, from
2 X 104 up to 9 X 104, for spacings from 1.2 up to 35 dia for
the downstream cylinder, and from 1.5 to 5.0 for the upstream
one. Further extension of similar measurements for the smooth
cylinders only at spacings up to 50 dia was reported by Cooper
[29] in the same range of Reynolds numbers. The present author
resented [17] in a single plot the force measurements for spac-
ings from 1 to 10 dia in the Reynolds number range from 3.1
X 104 to 1.2 X 105 for the downstream cylinder. The kink and
the discontinuous jump were shown only in the last paper.
After this lengthy historical introduction it will be clear why
some results in Fig. 11 are shown only with single points (they
Fig. 11 Drag coefficients of cylinders
belong to the so-called first group of authors), some with single
curves of different lengths, (the second group of authors), and
some with sets of curves (the third group of authors). The
present author took the liberty of introducing a break in the
curves between the last experimental point preceding the critical
spacing and the first beyond it. The existence of the ciitical
spacing was not known at the time when the forces were meas-
ured, and, unfortunately, it is now impossible to show its actual
position with certainty. The exceptions are: the early measure-
ments shown in Fig. 2 where it seems clear that for Re = 6.5
X 104 and 1.6 X 105 the critical spacings were less than and
greater than the 3.5 dia spacing, respectively, and Ishigai, et al.
[9] who observed the critical spacing at 3.8 dia.

624 / DECEMBER 1977 Transactions of the ASME

 The discontinuous jump of the drag coefficient of the up-
stream cylinder is self-evident in Fig. 11 despite the fact that
only three full curves were available. The jump at the lower
Reynolds number of 3.4 X 103 seems to be reduced. The main
feature for all Reynolds numbers is that the single cylinder
drag force is reached soon beyond the critical spacing. It means
that thereafter the downstream cylinder had no effect on the
upstream one.
The drag coefficient of the downstream cylinder showed a
very strong dependence on the Reynolds number. There was
considerable scatter of data in the range of spacings less than
was still 20 percent below the value of a single cylinder at the
Reynolds number 5 X 104 [21].
The curves compiled in Fig. 11 might have been affected by
different blockage effects in closed and open test sections and
by different measuring techniques. It is desirable to prove
the effect of the Reynolds number by tests in one wind tunnel
only. Cooper's [29] experimental data are compiled in a single
graph and reproduced in Fig. 12. The agreement with Fig. 11
is obvious and the measurements at Salford [17] showed the
same effects. Cooper wrote that the data at the lower test
speeds were scattered due to low signal levels, and so the in-

critical. This scatter probably was caused by different blockage
effects (ratio of the height of the test section to the cylinder
diameter). These differed considerably in various measurements
as shown in Table 1.
The range of spacings above the critical showed two different
trends. At low Reynolds number the drag coefficient of the
downstream cylinder approached the value of the upstream
cylinder. At high subcritical Reynolds numbers, the wake
turbulence from the upstream cylinder induced a supercritical
flow around the downstream one and hence the drag remained
small even at large spacing. In between these two extremes
there was a gradual change of the drag coefficient with a con-
tinuous slope upwards with increasing spacing, and decreasing
Reynolds number. It might be argued that the drag coefficient
of the downstream cylinder was affected in a similar way as a
single cylinder exposed to a free stream with different levels of
turbulence. The reader is referred to a paper by Fage and
Warsap [30] for full details of the latter. It is remarkable that
even at 50 dia spacing the downstream cylinder drag coefficient
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/fluidsengineering/article-pdf/99/4/618/5899556/618_1.pdf by The University Of Western Australia user on 09 August 2021
flexion shown on the top two curves is questionable.
Effects of Surface Roughness. Most of the practical applicar
tions (in fact, almost all in civil and electrical engineering),
produce a flow regime in which the boundary layers become
fully turbulent well before the separation points on a circular
cylinder. This flow regime will be called "postcritical."5 The
fully turbulent boundary layers postpone the separation up to
about 100 deg, which results in a narrow wake. Nevertheless,
periodic vortex shedding was found in a regime, which, for the
smooth cylinder, begins for Reynolds numbers greater than
6 X 106. Fage and Warsap [30] found that surface roughness
can promote transition to turbulence in the boundary layers
around the circular cylinder and consequently reduce the actual
Reynolds number at which fully turbulent separation occurs.
B
Some authors called it, after Roshko, the transcritical and others super-
critical.

Table 1 Test rigs and models

Author(s) Year L/D B/D Tu% Test rig

1. Biermann, et al. 1933 48 33.5 (?) Open jet
2. Hori 1959 120 120 (?) Closed wind tunnel
3. Suzuki, et al. 1971 17.5 26 (?) Open jet
4. Cooper 1972 25 25 Low Closed wind tunnel
5. Tanida, et al. 1973 10.5 23 0% Water tank
6. Wardlaw, et al. 1973 46 69 Low Closed wind tunnel

L/D - Length to diameter ratio

B/D - Width of test section to diameter ratio
Tu% - Level of turbulence

io

oa

_L_i_J
SO 4 0 BO L/D

Fig. 12 Drag coefficient of the downstream cylinder for various

Reynolds numbers [29]

Journal of Fluids Engineering DECEMBER 1977 / 625

 Systematic measurements of the change of the drag force for
vaiious stranded cables [18, 19, 20, 28] showed t h a t the end
of the subcritical regime (laminar boundary layer separation)
occurred at a Reynolds number of 3 X 104. T h e critical regime
was followed by fully turbulent separation which occurred be-
yond Re = 7 X 104. This feature of stranded cables gave an
insight into a possible mechanism of interference of two smooth
circular cylinders at much higher Reynolds numbers.
Wardlaw and Cooper [28] systematically measured drag forces
of stranded cables in tandem. Only three sets of data are re-
produced: A, the end of the subcritical regime, B, the middle
of critical regime (minimum drag on a single cable) and C, the
postoritical regime. The data are compiled in Fig. 13. The curve
A for both cables was in agreement with the corresponding curve
for smooth cylinders at the end of the subcritical regime. The
kink and both jumps are at the right spacings and the shape
of the curve beyond the critical spacing is identical to those
shown in Figs. 11 and 12.
The critical regime showed a disappearance of the kink and
the subsequent jump is questionable. I t is known t h a t there is
no periodic vortex shedding in this regime so the jump should
not be expected. The force on the upstream cable was not
measured; more research is needed for this regime.
The postoritical regime brought back the kink and the jump,
as seen in Fig. 13. Both features are expected because vortex
shedding resumes in this regime. The upstream cable followed
the expected trend with a marked reduction of the jump.
Similar data for smooth cylinders are not yet available.
Side by Side Arrangement
Historical Survey of Early Research. Biermann and Herrnstein
[2] carried out measurements of the drag force when two cir-
cular cylinders were arranged to face the wind side by side.
They expressed the results through the interference drag coeffi-
cient which was defined in the same way as for the tandem
arrangement. Fig. 14 shows that the interference drag was
zero for all spacings greater than 5 dia. The interference drag
L/D-»« A
SOL/D
_ _ A J-i « 1 0 '
. 14 « lO 4
C 1-3 « lO 5
Fig. 13 Drag coefficient of stranded cables [28]
626 / DECEMBER 1977
increased as the spacing decreased but only down to 2 7 4 dia.
For smaller spacings, very odd changes occurred as seen in Fig.
14. The authors observed a remarkable feature and wrote:
"Apparently the type of flow (refers to positive and negative
interference drag) changes rapidly with a change in spacing; it
may even change while t h e spacing is held constant." This was
the first indication of the bistable nature of two different flow
patterns a t these spacings.
Landweber [31] undertook a photographic study of the wake
behind two cylinders towed side by side in water. T h e spacings
chosen were: 1 (cylinders in contact), l1/*, lVs, 2, 2'A, 3, and 4
dia. H e observed a single vortex street for the first two spac-
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/fluidsengineering/article-pdf/99/4/618/5899556/618_1.pdf by The University Of Western Australia user on 09 August 2021
ings, "confused" 4 rows of vortices for the third, and two distinct
vortex streets for the rest. He neglected the "confused 4 rows"
and devoted the rest of his paper to coupled vortex streets.
Spivack [32] was the first to carry out a systematic meas-
urement of the vortex shedding frequency behind two cylinders
in the side-by-side arrangement. He found for all transverse
spacings, T, greater than 2 dia a single frequency in both wakes
which, when reduced to Strouhal number, was the same as
for t h e single cylinder. For the transverse spacing less than
2 dia, two different frequencies were recorded in both wakes as
shown in Fig. 15. T h e upper frequency disappeared for small
spacings (about 1.4 dia) and only the lower one continued down
to the—cylinders in contact. Spivack suggested an empirical
formula for the Strouhal number: S = 0.09 + | (T/D - 1/2)/
(T/D + 1) |2. The possible explanation for the existence of
two different frequencies was due to two different wakes be-
hind two cylinders, but why they were found in both wakes was
left unexplained. A very low frequency was detected along the
gap centerline (between the cylinders only) for spacings less
than 1.4.
Hori [3] measured the surface pressure distribution around
one of the two cylinders for various wind speeds, gaps between
them, and angles between the wind direction and the plane of
+ 1-63 x IO !
6 T/D
Fig. 14 Interference drag coefficient for the side by side arrange-
ment [2]
9 WITHIN WAKES
a ALONG CAP CENTRE LINE
I 2 3 T/D 4
Fig. 15 Strouhal number for the side by side arrangement [32]
Transactions of the ASME
 the cylinders' axes. Fig. 16 shows the base pressure coefficient
at Re = 8 X 103 for three spacings 1.2, 2, and 3 dia. () = 0
deg gives the base pressure of the upstream cylinder in the tan-
dem arrangement, () = 90 deg on one cylinder in the side-by-side
arrangement, and () = 180 deg on the downstream one in the
tandem arrangement. There is a discontinuous change of the
base pressure coefficient for the side-by-side arrangement when
the spacings were 1.2 and 2.0 dia. Hori carefully verified this
by adding additional experimental points in front of and behind
the location of the jump, and stated: "When () = 90 deg and
the gap is less than 2 dia, there is a difference in Cpb of the two

Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/fluidsengineering/article-pdf/99/4/618/5899556/618_1.pdf by The University Of Western Australia user on 09 August 2021
cylinders, although the geometrical arrangement is symmetrical
with respect to the stream." It was a third indication that the
wakes behind the two cylinders were different.
Bistable Nature of Biased Flow Pattern. Ishigai, et al. [9] used
Fig.16 Base pressure coefficient for various arrangements [3]
the Schlieren optical method and photographed the flow pattern
around the two cylinders, Fig. 17 shows a selection of frames
from a cine film for five different side-by-side arrangements. For
the transverse spacing ratios 3 and 2.5, the vortex shedding is
"coupled," as seen in Figs. 17(a) and (b). The vortex formation
and shedding is markedly symmetric about the axis of the gap.
At TID = 2.0, Fig. 17(c), the vortex shedding is still coupled,
but the gap flow is slightly deflected upwards. The vortex
fhedding becomes uncoupled and weak at TID = 1.5 in Fig.
17(d), while the gap flow is biased to one side. Consequently,
wide and narrow wakes are formed behind the cylinders. The
same trend continues at TID = 1.25 as seen in Figs. 17(e)
and (f). The biased flow in the gap is bistable and intermitt-
ently changes over either downwards, Fig. 17(e) or upwards,
17(f).
Ishigai, et al. [9] suggested that the biased flow in the gap
was due to the Coanda effect, i.e., flow attaching itself more ( ) ..
TJIJ 3
(b)
lIfJ-2.$
«)
TW-2
to one cylinder smface than the other due to unsymmetric R. :CXi) R~ • .c-SO /0',-3 )
separation. This was incorrect because the biased flow was Fig.17 Flow pattern for side-by-side arrangements [9]
observed [33] behind two flat plates placed side-by-side (fixed
separation points).
Bealman and Wadcock [33] were the first who measured the
Cpb
base pressure simultaneously on both cylinders, and found that
-I"
the cylinders always experienced different base pressures in the
-1·4
range of spacings between 1.1 and 2.3 dia, Fig. 18 (Hori's [3]
data are also included). They stated, "The base pressure AUTHOR II.
changed from one steady value to another, or simply fluctuated o HAllMAN 2'5. 104
between the two extremes. Stopping and starting the tunnel X KORI • • 10'
again could cause the pressure to change over." The bistable
nature of the biased flow pattern was confirmed. Some physical
insight into the origin of the biased flow will be given in the
section dealing with the staggered arrangements.
-.
-..

-'2
0

0'-1--'----!2~--'---!:---
.......-~4 T/O
Lift and Drag Forces on Two Cylinders. The bistable nature of
Fig. 18 Base pressure coefficient for the side-by-side arrangement
the flow around the two cylinders means that in the range of [33] and [3]
spacings from 1.1 to 2.2 dia there are two bistable forces ex-
perienced by the cylinders. Two different forces act on the
two cylinders only for some time and change over of these
forces should always be taken into account.
There is an additional feature of the biased flow. The gap
flow biased to one side will produce a resultant force on the

---+--+--
cylinder which is deflected relative to the free stream direction.
Hence, there will be a component of the force acting perpen-
dicular to the free stream direction which may be called a lift
force. Repulsive lift forces between cylinders will be taken as CD C L Rc IIEI':
1••• 101
positive.
All available lift and drag coefficients were compiled in a
, + (2)
o • • • 10' (.)
Cl It 0 8 • • ,04 (17)

~\,
graph shown in Fig. 19. All the experimental points for the
6 6 2'5.104 (n)
drag coefficients measured by Biermann and Herrnstein [2],
Fig. 14, at Re = 1.63 X 105, were retained, but two curves are
drawn through them in Fig. 19. The measurements at Salford '~\.~-i==~_ _...J..._ _..J...._...J...=
0L._---l:;=:~::::L

[17] at Re = 6 X 10 4 were also included. They lay within I 2 I 4 5 • T/O

Bielmann's and Herrnstein's curves. Hori's [3] calculated drag Fig. 19 Lift and drag coefficients for the side-by-side arrangement
coefficients for three spacings were very close to the Salford [17]

Journal of Fluids Engineering DECEMBER 1977 / 627

 measurements. Bearman and Wadcock [33] stated values only
for the higher drag coefficient and these values were included
in Fig. 19. The overall trend of all curves is the same despite
the differences in the Reynolds number. The remarkable feature
of the interference between the two cylinders is that the sum
of the bistable high and low drag is always less than twice the
drag of the single cylinder.
Lift coefficients were not measured by Biermann and Herrn-
stein. Hori calculated lift for three spacings, and the values
are shown in Fig. 19. The two lift coefficients are very close
to one another.
Bearman and Wadcock [33] stated only the lift coefficient
for the high drag regime as shown. The lift coefficients measured
at Salford [17] were well below Bearman's and Hori's values.
The difference between the lift coefficients of the two flow re-
gimes was greater than found by Hori, particularly at the spac-
ing of 1.25 dia. The cause for these differences is at present
unknown and more research for very small gaps is necessary.
Very little is known at present about the existence of the biased
flow and its bistable nature in the post-critical flow regime.
The research at Salford, currently in progress, revealed that
both do exist even when the cylinders were finite (H/D = 5).
Staggered Arrangement
Classification of Staggered Arrangements. The staggered ar-
rangement is likely to occur most often in engineering appli-
cations, but has attracted the least research interest. The first
systematic measurements of surface pressure distribution around
one of the two parallel cylinders in various staggered arrange-
ments were carried out by Hori [3]. He rotated the cylinder
pairs and exposed them in staggered arrangements to the wind
for three spacings only (L/D = 1.2, 2.0 and 3.0). The measured
base pressure was shown in Fig. 16.
Hori calculated drag and lift coefficients from the surface
pressure measurements and presented them in a table. From
these values, the resultant interference force coefficients were
plotted in Fig. 20. The resultant interference force coefficient
was obtained by vectorially subtracting the drag coefficient for
the single cylinder from the given force coefficients. The inter-
ference effects are proportional to the vectors shown. The
CB-W
/ §-^
v
- ^ © / ® 4.'\
© IO 3
FLOW
W I K
(?) r ^
- /f\A®K ©
/ \
c8-cBO\
Fig. 20 Interference force coefficient for all arrangements [3]
628 / DECEMBER 1977
bistable range of the side by side arrangement yields two vec-
tors acting on each of the two cylinders. One of the cylinders
experiences the force corresponding to upstream stagger while
the other encounters, at the same time, the force corresponding
to downstream stagger. The vectors on the two cylinders are
almost identical in the lift direction but markedly different in
the drag direction. Hence, the bistable side-by-side arrange-
ments represent a transition from the upstream to the down-
stream stagger.
A direction of the interference force coefficient from right to
left indicates that the drag at that position is less than for the
single cylinder, while the opposite direction means that the drag
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/fluidsengineering/article-pdf/99/4/618/5899556/618_1.pdf by The University Of Western Australia user on 09 August 2021
is greater than for the single cylinder. The upward direction
in the upper half and downward direction in the lower half of
the figure indicate a repulsive, positive lift force while the
opposite directions in the corresponding halves indicate a neg-
ative lift force.
All possible arrangements of two cylinders were classified into
regions by taking into account whether the drag force is greater
or less than for the single cylinder and whether the lift force
is positive, negative or negligible. These regions are shown in
Fig. 20. The upstream cylinder can be situated in three regions.
(1) Negligible lift force and reduced drag force.
(2) Small repulsive lift force and reduced drag force.
(3) Repulsive lift force and increased drag force.
The downstream cylinder can be situated, in addition to the
above three, in the following regions:
(4) Negligible lift force and increased drag force. This is a
small region and beyond it there is no interference.
(5) Negative lift force and decreased drag force. This is a
dominant region for the downstream cylinder.
It is interesting to note that the upstream and downstream
cylinder in any staggered arrangement usually belong to differ-
ent regions. The cylinders in tandem arrangements for spacings
less than the ciitical, and side-by-side arrangements beyond the
bistable range, are both in the same region. When the cylinders
are in the side-by-side arrangement within the bistable range,
then one belongs to region 3 and the other to region 2, or vice
versa.
T/B I C t ° 0
© . - . • " C o * C„
-AU*- 3 L/O
i
/
„A X
\
© /
©
Transactions of the ASME
 The wide variety of changes of the interference force reflect
the very complicated nature of the corresponding flow patterns.
Suzuki, et al. [22] measured the distribution of time average
pressure around the downstream cylinder in region 5, and their
results are shown in Fig. 21. Some insight into the flow patterns
can be inferred from Fig. 21, bearing in mind that the Eeynolds
number is higher than in Fig. 20. The most prominent feature
is that the axis of "symmetry" of the pressure distribution does
fegS-003 fr«0
Fig. 21 Pressure distributions around the downstream cylinder in
staggered arrangement [22]
eL roa R0 ™a » lo*
Fig. 22 Lift force coefficient for a downstream cylinder at Re = 6.X
X10< [17]
Fig. 23 Drag force coefficient for a downstream cylinder at Re = 6.1
X 10* [17]
Journal of Fluids Engineering
not coincide with the angle of stagger. This fact prompted the
present author to abandon the angle of stagger in all subsequent
sections and to describe all the phenomena in terms of L/D
and T/D instead.
Forces on the Downstream Cylinder. Systematic measurements
of the lift and drag force at Salford [17] covered tandem arrange-
ments from 1 to 5 dia spacing, side-by-side arrangements from
1 to 3 dia, and a series of staggered arrangements within these
two limits. The results are presented in the L/D - T/D plane
and then the curves of constant coefficients are drawn by in-
terpolation between the measured values of lift and drag coef-
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/fluidsengineering/article-pdf/99/4/618/5899556/618_1.pdf by The University Of Western Australia user on 09 August 2021
ficients, as shown in Figs. 22 and 23 at Re = 6 X 104.
The plot of constant lift coefficient curves in Fig. 22 shows a
positive (repulsive) force in the regions 2 and 3. The remainder
is region 5 with a negative lift force directed towards the axis
of the upstream cylinder wake. It is surprising that there are
two separate curves representing the maximum lift coefficient
(chain dot lines). One lies well inside the upstream cylinder
wake for L/D up to 3, and the other is near to the wake bound-
ary for spacings greater than 2.7 dia. The overlap is an indica-
tion that there should be two entirely different origins of the
outer and inner maximum negative lift force as will be shown in
the next section.
The corresponding drag coefficient plot for the same Reynolds
number is shown in Fig. 23. The most striking feature is that
for spacings less than 3 dia the minimum drag coefficient of
DECEMBER 1977 / 629
the downstream cylinder occurs in the staggered arrange-
ment, and not in the tandem arrangement, as might be ex-
pected. This region of the minimum drag coefficient almost
completely coincides with the inner maximum negative lift co-
efficient (shown as a chain dot line). This coincidence will be
used to explain the origin of the inner lift force in the subse-
quent section.
The second feature seen in Fig. 23 is that the drag coefficient
increases regularly and gradually with the transvet"se spacing.
This feature is not affected in the region where the outer lift
coefficient maximum occurs.
The two values of the drag coefficient for the bistable side-by-
side spacing are shown on two sides of the TID axis, Fig. 23.
The "spread" of the bistable values int() the nearby staggered
arrangements is schematically shown with two parallel lines.
This should be taken only as a qualitative indication because
the actual spread of the bistable values is not known at present.
For example, Wardlaw and Cooper [28] observed that the inter-
mittency of the drag force at TID = 1.5 persisted within the
range of stagger from -0.16 ~ LID ~ 0.16. Roberts [34]
called this intermittency "the jet switch" and found severe
vibrations when every alternate cylinder in a cascade was
flexible.
The Origin of the Outer Lift Force. A plausible explanation of
the origin of a negative lift force has been offered by Mail' and
Maull [35]. They proposed that the negative lift is due to the
entrainment of the flow into the wake boundary of the up-
stream cylinder. This explanation is applicable as long as the
downstream cylinder is not in the wake of the upstream one.
Sketch A in Fig. 24 shows that the flow rate around the down-
stream cylinder is unaffected on the outer side, but is increased
due to the entrainment between the inner side and the fully
formed wake of the upstream cylinder. The measurements of
the mean pressure distribution around the downstream cylinder
by Suzuki, et aI. [22] and Zdravkovich [11] showed that a shift
in the stagnation point was always in the direction away from
the side of the upstream wake. The pressure distribution was
almost symmetric about the axis passing through the shifted
stagnation point and the center of the cylinder as shown in
Fig. 21 (for large spacings only). Hence, the resulting pressure
force was inclined to the freestream velocity and had a com-
ponent in the negative lift direction.
The negative lift force increases as the downstream cylinder
approaches the upstream cylinder wake. The maximum is
reached when the downstream cylinder "displaces" the upstream
cylinder wake and in doing so "squeezes" the streamlines be-
tween its inner side and the displaced wake, sketch B in Fig. 24.
Flow visualisation pictures by Ishigai, et aI. [9] and Cooper
[39] clearly show that. The latter are reproduced in Fig. 25.
It is evident that, even at TID = 1, all the wake flow passes
=:::-=========------------
~~:~.
@~ u V
Fig.24 Sketch of flow patterns in staggered arrangement
630 IDE CE M B E R 1977
only around the upper part of the downstream cylinder.
It should be pointed out that "wake displacement" hypothesis
is a novel one. All the previous authors assumed that the down-
stream cylinder is submerged in the wake of the upstream one.
Maekawa [19] was the first who put forward that assumption
after measuring the gradient of the static pressure across the
single cylinder wake. He hypothesized that the same wake
exists behind the upstream cylinder and induces a "buoyancy"
force on the downstream cylinder directed towards the center
line of the upstream cylinder wake. Taylor [36], however,
found that when the circular cylinder was subjected to a shear
flow similar to that behind the upstream cylinder, the lift
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/fluidsengineering/article-pdf/99/4/618/5899556/618_1.pdf by The University Of Western Australia user on 09 August 2021
force should be in the positive direction. This was verified by
Snyder [37]. Cooper [29] showed by pressure integration that
less than half of the observed lift can be ascribed to the pressure
gradient across the wake. Despite that qualitative and quan-
titative contradiction, all subsequent researchers followed the
same path.
Price [38] found that the wake characteristics of the upstream
cylinder had a negligible effect on the lift of the downstream
cylinder. He also found that the lift force increased when the
upstream cylinder was smaller than the downstream one, and
it substantially decreased when the downstream cylinder was
smaller than the upstream one. If the lift force was due to the
upstream cylinder wake displacement, then it should not de-
pend on the wake characteristics. If the upstream cylinder is
smaller than the downstream one, the latter will be able to
"displace" the "smaller" wake to a greater extent which re-
sults in the greater lift. Contrary to that, when the smaller
downstream cylinder is in the wake of a bigger upstream cyl-
inder, the former is less effective in displacing a "bigger wake"
and the result is a decrease of the lift force. When the down-
stream cylinder is much smaller than the upstream one, it might
be unable to displace the upstream cylinder wake and it will
be submerged into the shear flow. Price found, in that case, a
positive lift force as should be expected from Taylor's theory
[36] and Snyder's tests [37]. It seems to the present author
l -=--
.~4'6
i C..·.02.
II
~~":1
Fig. 25 Flow visualisation of staggered arrangements [39)
Transactions of the ASME
that this decisive evidence in favor of the wake displacement
hypothesis proved it to be the correct one.
There are, in the literature, misleading hypotheses concerning
a wake boundary and an interference boundary. T h e wake
boundary is a line along which the velocity becomes the same
as the free stream one. T h e interference boundary is the line
along which the drag force is identical to the single cylinder
drag force and the lift force becomes zero. Cooper and Wardlaw
[21] proposed t h a t both boundaries coincide for all longitudinal
spacings. This is not so, as seen in Fig. 25, and it is not even
necessary for a theoretical explanation once the shear flow con-
cept is abandoned. The wake displacement concept coupled
with Mair and Maull's wake entrainment concept indicate t h a t
the interference boundary must always be outside the wake
boundary.
Finally, some of the literature does not employ the proper
definition of the interference boundary. Many authors observed
that the zero lift coefficient was reached at a greater transverse
spacing than the spacing at which the drag became equal to
the single cylinder value. This is in agreement with the wake
entrainment concept.
The slight asymmetry of the flow around the downstream
cylinder induced by the entrainment of the flow into the up-
stream wake causes the lift force, while the drag force remains
unchanged. The first noticeable decrease of the drag force can
be expected only after a sufficient lift force is produced, i.e.,
when the resulting force is sufficiently tilted. Hence, the correct
and precise definition of the interference boundary is that it is
a line along which the lift force becomes zero or negligible.
The Origin of the Inner Lift Force. The maximum negative lift
force for all longitudinal spacings L/D less than 3 dia cor-
responds to a position of the downstream cylinder well inside
the wake of the upstream one, as seen in Fig. 22. T h e mag-
nitude of the lift coefficient is higher than those on the outer
Ci m ax curve. It is evident that the side of the downstream
cylinder crossed the axis of the wake of the upstream one.
Immediately after the Ci m „x was reached, a step-like fall brings
the lift coefficient down to a very low value. The position of
the downstream cylinder suggests t h a t an intense gap flow
between the cylinders might be responsible for such a high
Ctmax. Further reduction of the transverse spacing might
"block" t h e gap flow with the corresponding sharp fall of t h e
lift coefficient.
The time-average pressure distribution round the downstream
cylinder gave full support to the above description. Two differ-
ent pressure distributions were found [17] as shown in Fig. 26.
One of the distributions has a very low pressure between 270
and 360 deg which is due to a high velocity around t h a t side of
the downstream cylinder. The stagnation point, seen as the posi-
tive pressure peak in Fig. 26, was at 45 deg, and the negative
pressure did not appear at 90 deg. These facts indicate t h a t the
bulk of the flow approaching the downstream cylinder was di-
Fig. 26 Pressure distribution around the downstream cylinder in
staggered arrangement [17]
Journal of Fluids Engineering
rected toward the gap between the cylinders. T h e result of such
a pressure distribution was a very high lift force.
T h e second pressure distribution shows t h e disappearance of
the low pressure between 270 and 360 deg, and appearance of a
new one at 90 deg. T h e distribution resembles those shown in
Fig. 3 for the tandem arrangement at spacings less than critical.
T h e main difference is that the present one is markedly asym-
metric. Hence, it m a y be inferred t h a t the flow pattern resem-
bles those in the tandem arrangement with no-flow and without
vortex shedding in the gap. T h e result is a very small lift.
For spacings less than 3 dia, it was shown in Fig. 23 t h a t the
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/fluidsengineering/article-pdf/99/4/618/5899556/618_1.pdf by The University Of Western Australia user on 09 August 2021
minimum drag coefficient occurred for the same transverse
spacing for which a maximum lift coefficient was found. T h e
pressure distribution for high lift revealed t h a t it was due to the
very low pressure around 360 deg in comparison to that at 180
deg. Hence, the minimum negative drag coefficient in t h e
staggered arrangement is a by-product of the gap flow while
the negative drag in t h e tandem arrangement is due to "no-flow"
in the gap.
The most striking feature of the two pressure distributions
shown in Fig. 26 was that they changed over intermittently at
irregular time intervals. This indicated a bistable nature of t h e
fully developed maximum flow through the gap between the
cylinder and no-flow pattern similar to t h a t found in the tandem
arrangements at these spacings. T h e alternating changes of
pressure distribution resulted in a discontinuous change of the
lift coefficient whilst the drag coefficient was less affected and
showed little difference in the measured values. T h e same
behavior was found not only at the Reynolds number of 6 X 104
but also at 8.5 X 104 and 1.1 X 106. Wardlaw and Cooper
[28] experimental d a t a showed a similar discontinuity in the
lift coefficient at R e = 2.5 X 104. I t is not known a t present
whether the gap flow exists in the whole range of subcritical
Reynolds numbers. Severe vibrations may be excited by the
bistable gap flow [11].
Reynolds Number Effects. Our present knowledge of the post-
critical flow regime around a single cylinder indicates some
features which should be expected in the case of two cylinders
in a staggered arrangement. The first well known feature is
t h a t the wake behind a single cylinder narrows compared with
the subcritical regime. This will cause a similar contraction of
the interference boundary in the case of two staggered cylinders.
This trend has been found by various authors [19, 20, 21, and
28]. I t should be pointed out t h a t all these authors observed
this contraction behind stranded cables and not behind smooth
cylinders at high Reynolds numbers. The so-called "wake-
galloping" instability boundary moved closer to the upstream
cable and its wake axis [21]. The outer CLI™* curve was found
[28] to be almost half-way between the Chm**. of the subcritical
regime and the axis of the upstream cable. I t seems, however,
t h a t the inner Ct m a x remained at the same transverse spacings
and extended over the same range of longitudinal spacings,
L/D. More research is necessary to confirm this finding for
smooth cylinders and to investigate the effect of surface rough-
ness on the gap flow.
Some preliminary research at Salford showed t h a t a discon-
tinuous suppression of the gap flow also exists in the fully tur-
bulent regime.
The most complicated range of spacings is that where the
outer Ci m l i X and the inner one overlap. Some qualitative in-
sight may be obtained from the two Figs. 27 and 28. T h e experi-
mental data given by Wardlaw and Cooper [28] were compiled
into two curves. T h e lift coefficient measured on t h e down-
stream cylinder (both were smooth) is shown versus the trans-
verse spacing. Only the data for the lowest, Re = 2.42 X 10 4
and highest Re = 8.46 X 104 are shown in Fig. 27. Two peaks
are evident; one indicating the position of the inner Ctmax and
the second indicating the position of the outer Cimax. Both
curves are similar and they differ only at very small trans-
DECEMBER 1977 / 631

2-4 K I d "
—2 -
Fig. 27 Lift coefficient of the downstream cylinder in staggered ar-
rangements at L/D = 3 [28]
L/O *3
(FULLY TURBULENT)
Fig. 28 Lift coefficient of a downstream stranded cable in staggered
arrangement [28]
verse spacings. At the higher Reynolds number the lift coeffi-
cient is positive for very small transverse spacings and this
was also found by [5] and [22]. The discontinuous jump due to
the gap flow is greater for the higher Reynolds number than
for the lower one.
The lift coefficients measured on two stranded cables at the
same Reynolds number are shown in Fig. 28. The lower Reyn-
olds number corresponds to a subcritical flow regime and the
higher one to the fully turbulent flow regime. There is a marked
difference between these two curves. Neither the position of
the two peaks nor their magnitudes are the same.
The low Reynolds number curve as seen in Fig. 28, which
corresponds to the subcritical regime, is not similar to those
curves shown in Fig. 27. The position of the outer peak is the
same but the magnitude is much higher. The inner peak is
not seen and it may be argued t h a t the surface roughness affected
the gap flow in an unknown manner.
The higher Reynolds number curve which corresponds to the
fully turbulent regime, see Fig. 28, is similar to the higher
Reynolds number curve in Fig. 27. Both peaks are distinct,
the outer one markedly shifted to smaller transverse spacings
as expected. The magnitude of the lift coefficient is much
lower than in the subcritical regime except at small transverse
spacings. The latter is an opposite trend to that seen in Fig. 27.
Finally, it may be suggested that future research should take
into account separately all four parameters: Re, L/D, T/D
and the surface roughness with an emphasis on L/D less than
three.
Vortex Shedding. T h e most neglected feature of the flow
around two staggered cylinders was, and still is, the measure-
ments of vortex shedding. I t is expected that at large spacing, the
Strouhal number should be equal to t h a t found for a single
632 / DECEMBER 1977
L/0 I n
O e ©
o-s -®- •9-
1 s 9
2 0 9
4
• t
SPIVACK'S RESULTS (32)
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/fluidsengineering/article-pdf/99/4/618/5899556/618_1.pdf by The University Of Western Australia user on 09 August 2021
T/D
Fig. 29 Strouhal number for cylinders in staggered arrangement [9]
cylinder. Contrarily, t h e Strouhal numbers for both cylinders
should be different at small spacings.
T h e only available data were measured in t h e intermediate
subcritical range by Ishigai, et al. [9]. Their results are re-
produced in Fig. 29. I t is evident t h a t the upstream cylinder
with a narrow wake has a higher Strouhal number. T h e peak
is reached at L/D = 1. The downstream cylinder is less affected
and the Strouhal number is always less than for the single
cylinder.
Closing Comments
The complexity of the flow interference between two circular
cylinders may be due to differing flow patterns. T h e flow pat-
terns provide phenomenological explanation, b u t t h e intrinsic
nature of the flow patterns remains a mystery. Hence, future
research should be directed in t h a t direction.
The existence of bistable flow patterns m a y excite flow-in-
duced vibrations of large amplitude. These vibrations m a y
occur at any natural frequency of the elastic cylinders. They
will be the subject of another paper.
Acknowledgment
I would like to express m y gratitude to the Referees whose
comments greatly improved the presentation of the paper.
References
1 Pannell, J. R., Griffiths, E. A., and Coales, J. D., "Experi-
ments on the Interference between Pairs of Aeroplane Wires of
Circular and Lenticular Cross Section," (British) Advisory Com-
mittee for Aeronautics, Reports and Memoranda No. 208, 1915,
Annual Reports for 1915-1916, Vol. 7, pp. 219-221.
2 Biermann, D., and Herrnstein, W. H., Jr., "The Inter-
ference between Struts in Various Combinations," National Ad-
visory Committee for Aeronautics, Tech. Rep. 468, 1933.
3 Hori, E., "Experiments on Flow around a Pair of Parallel
Circular Cylinders," Proc. 9th Japan National Congress for Ap-
plied, Mech., Tokyo, 1959, pp. 231-234.
4 Zdravkovich, M . M., and Stanhope, D. J., "Flow P a t t e r n
in the Gap Between Two Cylinders in Tandem," University of
Salford Internal Report F M 5/72, 1972.
5 Zdravkovich, M. M., "Smoke Observations of Wakes of
Tandem Cylinders at Low Reynolds Number," The Aeronautical
Journal, Vol. 76, Feb. 1972, pp. 108-114.
6 Thomas, D. G., and Kraus, K. A., "Interaction of Vortex
Streets," Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 35, No. 12, Dec. 1964,
pp. 3458-3459.
7 Oka, S., Kostic, Z. G., and Sikmanovic, S., "Investigation
Transactions of the ASME
 of the Heat Transfer Processes in Tube Banks in Cross Flow,"
International Seminar on Recent Developments in Heat Ex-
changers, Trogir, 1972, Yugoslavia (preprint).
8 Novak, J., "Strouhal Number of a Square Prism, Angle
Iron and Two Circular Cylinders Arranged in Tandem," (in
English) Acta Technica, Czechoslovak Akaolemy of Sciences, No. 3,
1974, p p . 361-373.
9 Ishigai, S., Nishikawa, E., Nishimura, K., and Cho, K.,
"Experimental Study on Structure of Gas Flow in Tube Banks
with Tube Axes Normal to Flow (Part 1, Karman Vortex Flow
around two Tubes at Various Spacings)," Bulletin of the Japan
Society Mechanical Engineers, Vol. 15, No. 86, 1972, pp. 949-956.
10 Novak, J., "Strouhal Number for Two Cylinders of Dif-
ferent Diameters Arranged in Tandem," Acta Technica, Czecho-
slovak Academy of Sciences, No. 3,-1975, p p . 366-374.
11 Zdravkovich, M. M., "Flow Induced Vibrations of Two
Cylinders in Tandem, and their Suppression," Proceedings Inter-
national Symposium, Flow Induced Structural Vibrations, Karls-
ruhe 1972; Springer Verlag 1974, pp. 631-639.
12 King, R., and Johns, D. J., "Wake Interaction Experi-
ments with Two Flexible Circular Cylinders in Flowing Water,"
Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 45, No. 24, Mar. 1976, p p .
259-283.
13 Dickey, W. L , and Woodruff, G. B., "The Vibration of
Steel Stacks," Proceedings ASCE, Vol. 80, Paper No. 540, 1954.
14 Ozker, M. S., and Smith, J. O., "Factors Influencing the
Dynamic Behaviour of Tall Stacks under the Action of the
Wind," Journal of Power, TKANS. ASME, Vol. 78, 1956, pp.
1381-1391.
15 Roshko, A., "On the Wake and Drag of Bluff Bodies,"
Journal Aeronautical Sciences, Vol. 22, 1955, pp. 124-132.
16 Abernathy, F . H., and Kronauer, R. E., " T h e Formation
of Vortex Streets," Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 13, 1962,
pp. 1-20.
17 Zdravkovich, M. M., "Interference Between Two Circular
Cylinders; Series of Unexpected Discontinuities," Journal of
Industrial Aerodynamics, Vol. 2, 1977, pp. 255-270.
18 Counihan, J., "Lift and Drag Measurements on Stranded
Cables," Imperial College, London, Aero Report No. 117, 1963.
19 Maekawa, T., "Study on Wind Pressure against ACSR
Double Conductor," Electrical Engineering in Japan, Vol. 84,
1964, pp. 21-28.
20 Price, S. J., "Wake Induced Flutter of Power Transmission
Conductors," Journal of Sound and Vibration, Vol. 38, No. 1,
1975, pp. 125-147.
21 Cooper, K. R., and Wardlaw, R. L., "Aeroelastic Instabili-
ties in Wakes," Proceedings International Symposium on Wind
Effects on Buildings and Structures, Tokyo, 1971, Paper IV.1.
22 Suzuki, N., Sato, H., Iuchi, M., and Yammamoto, Sh.,
"Aerodynamic Forces Acting on Circular Cylinders Arranged in
Longitudinal Row," Proceedings International Symposium, Wind
Effects on Buildings and Structures, Tokyo, 1971, pp. 377-386.
23 Tanida, A., Okajima, A., and Watanabe, Y., "Stability
of Circular Cylinder Oscillating in Uniform Flow or in a Wake,"
Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 61, 1973, pp. 769-784.
24 Nagai, S., and Kurata, K., "Interference between Cylin-
Journal of Fluids Engineering
ders in Open Channel Flow," Transactions, Japan Society Civil
Engineers, Vol. 3, pp. 57-64 (in Japanese).
25 Hoerner, S. F., Fluid Dynamics of Drag (published by the
author), 1958.
26 Kostic, Z. G., and Oka, S. N., "Fluid Flow and H e a t
Transfer with Two Cylinders in Cross Flow," International
Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, Vol. 15, 1972, pp. 279-299
27 Zdravkovich, M. M., and Pridden, D. J., "Flow Around
Two Circular Cylinders; Research Report," Proceedings 2nd
U. S. National Conference on Wind Enqineerinq Research, Fort
Collins, 1975, Paper IV-18.
28 Wardlaw, R. L., and Cooper, K. R., "A Wind Tunnel In-
vestigation of the Steady Aerodynamic Forces on Smooth and
Stranded Twin Bundled Power Conductors for the Aluminium
Downloaded from http://asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/fluidsengineering/article-pdf/99/4/618/5899556/618_1.pdf by The University Of Western Australia user on 09 August 2021
Company of America," National Aeronautical Establishment,
Canada, 1973, LTR-LA-117.
29 Cooper, K. R., "Wind Tunnel Measurements of the Steady
Aerodynamic Forces on a Smooth Circular Cylinder Immersed
in the Wake of an Identical Cylinder," National Aerodynamic
Establishment, Canada, 1974, LTR-LA-119.
30 Fage, A., and Warsap, J. H., " T h e Effects of Turbulence
and Surface Roughness on the Drag of a Circular Cylinder,"
Aeronautical Research Council, Reports and Memoranda No.
1283, 1929.
31 Landweber, L., "Flow About a Pair of Adjacent, Parallel
Cylinders Normal to a Stream," Navy Dept. D . W. Taylor Model
Basin, Report 485, 1942, Washington, D.C.
32 Spivak, H. M., "Vortex Frequency and Flow Pattern in
the Wake of Two Parallel Cylinders at Varied Spacings Normal
to an Air Stream," Journal Aeronatuical Sciences, Vol. 13, 1946,
pp. 289-297.
33 Bearman, P. W., and Wadcock, A. J., " T h e Interaction
Between a Pair of Circular Cylinders Normal to a Stream,"
Journal Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 61, pp. 499-511.
34 Roberts, B. W., "Low Frequency Aeroelastic Vibrations in
a Cascade of Circular Cylinders," Mechanical Engineering
Science Monograph, No. 4, 1966.
35 Mair, W. A., and Maull, D . J., "Aerodynamic Behaviour
of Bodies in the Wake of Other Bodies," Transactions Royal
Society, A, Vol. 269, 1971, pp. 425-437.
36 Taylor, G. I., "Motion of Solids in Fluids when the Flow
is. Irrotational," Proceedings Royal Society, A, Vol. 93, 1917, p p .
99-113.
37 Snyder, M. A., "Testing of Cylinders in Shear Flow,"
J. Aircraft, Vol. 8, 1971, pp. 593-596.
38 Price, S. J., "The Origin and Nature of the Lift Force on
Two Bluff Bodies," Aeronatuical Quarterly, Vol. X X V I , 1976, p p .
154-168.
39 Cooper, K. R., "Wind Tunnel and Theoretical Investiga-
tions into the Aerodynamic Stability of Smooth and Stranded
Twin Bundled Power Conductors," National Aeronautical Es-
tablishment, Canada, 1973. LTR-LA-115.
40 Quadflieg, H., "Vortex Induced Load on the Cylinders
Pair at High Reynolds Numbers," (in German), Forsch. Ing.-
Wes., Vol. 43, 1977, pp. 9-18. This paper was published after
the present review was written.
DECEMBER 1977 / 633