Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Dong 2004
Dong 2004
Cd íCPb St
DNS (P = 5, Nz = 16) 1.155 1.129 0.195
Figure 2. (a) Time history of drag coefficient and (b) lift
coefficient, of the flow past a stationary cylinder at
DNS (P = 5, Nz = 64) 1.110 1.084 0.209
Re=10,000.
DNS (P = 5, Nz = 128) 1.128 1.171 0.205
Bishop & Hassan (1964) — — 0.201 The mean pressure distribution on the cylinder
Gopalkrishnan (1993) 1.186 — 0.193 surface is first compared to the experimental data from[20]
Williamson (1996) — 1.112 in Figure 3. An overall good agreement is observed
Norberg (2003) — — 0.202 between the DNS at Re=10,000 and the experiment by
Norberg[0] which was performed at Re=8,000. The
simulation results show a lower value of the minimum
4. Cylinder Flows at Re=10,000 pressure on the cylinder surface.
We next compare the flow statistics between the
simulation and the PIV experimental data[22] at
Simulations have been performed on two
Re=10,000. In Figure 4 we plot contours of the Reynolds
configurations of the cylinder flow at Re=10,000. In the
first configuration the cylinder is stationary. In the stress u cvc ! from PIV experiment (left) and from
second configuration the cylinder undergoes a forced current simulations (right). The contours from PIV and
sinusoidal motion described by Eq. 1. In this section we DNS are plotted on the same levels,
will compare the flow statistics of the cylinder wake with u cvc! min 0.03 and ' u cvc ! 0.01 . The
between simulations and PIV experiment for the computed Reynolds stress agrees with the experimental
stationary case, and compare several physical quantities data quite well. The Reynolds stress distribution shows
between simulations and the MIT experiment for the four distinct “lobes” which are anti-symmetric with
oscillation case. respect to the centerline. Comparisons of the mean and
M2 0.3 0.25
We next examine the turbulent flows past a circular The lift force phase angle, the angle by which the lift
cylinder that undergoes forced sinusoidal oscillations in force leads the imposed cylinder motion, is an important
the cross-flow direction (see Eq. 1) at Re=10,000. Our quantity as it determines the sign of the power transfer
emphasis is on the influence of the cylinder oscillation on between the cylinder and the fluid. The magnitude of the
the physical quantities, and the comparison of simulation power transfer depends on the lift coefficient in phase
results with the experiment data[7] at the same Reynolds with the cylinder velocity. In Figure 6 we plot the history
number. of the lift coefficient and the cylinder displacement in the
We have considered two oscillation frequencies with flow past an oscillating cylinder at Re=10,000 at an
a moderate displacement amplitude Y0/D = 0.3 (see oscillation frequency foD/U0 = 0.25. The lift force and the
Table 3 for the parameters). In Figure 5 we plot the drag cylinder motion are essentially in phase at this frequency.
coefficient (left) and lift coefficient (right) as a function The behavior of the lift force phase angle and the lift
of the nondimensional frequency foD/U0 from the coefficient in phase with velocity from[7] and from current
experimental data as well as from current simulations at simulations are illustrated in Figure 7. The DNS results
Re=10,000. The agreement between simulation results are in good agreement with the experimental data.
and the measurements of[7] is reasonably good. The
simulation under-predicts the drag coefficients and over-
predicts the lift coefficient at frequency foD/U0 = 0.14. At
the two frequencies simulated, there is not much
difference in the drag coefficient, while the lift coefficient
6. Concluding Remarks