4.3 Article

Numerical investigation of fluid flow past a square cylinder using upstream, downstream and dual splitter plates

期刊

出版社

KOREAN SOC MECHANICAL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1007/s12206-017-0119-z

关键词

Reduction of drag forces; Single relaxation time lattice Boltzmann method; Square cylinder; Splitter plates; Vortex shedding control

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A two-dimensional numerical study is carried out to analyze the drag reduction and vortex shedding suppression behind a square cylinder in presence of splitter plate arranged in upstream, downstream and both upstream and downstream location at low Reynolds number (Re = 160). Computations are performed using a Single relaxation time lattice Boltzmann method (SRT-LBM). Firstly, the code is validated for flow past a single square cylinder. The obtained results are compared to those available in literature and found to be in good agreement. Numerical simulations are performed in the ranges of 1 4 and 0 7, where L and g are the length of splitter plate and gap spacing between the splitter plate and main square cylinder, respectively. The effect of these parameters on the vortex shedding frequency, time-trace analysis of drag and lift coefficients, power spectra analysis of lift coefficient, vorticity contours visualization and force exerted on the cylinder are quantified together with the observed flow patterns around the main cylinder and within the gap spacings. The observed results are also compared with a single square cylinder without splitter plate. We found that at some combinations of L and g, the mean drag coefficient and Strouhal number reach either its maximum or minimum value. It is found that the drag is reduced up to 62.2 %, 13.3 % and 70.2 % for upstream, downstream and dual splitter plates, respectively as compared to a single square cylinder (without splitter plate). In addition, in this paper we also discussed the applications of SRT-LBM for suppression of vortex shedding and reduction of the drag coefficients.

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

4.3
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