KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering (0000) 00(0):1-11 Water Engineering

Copyright ⓒ2015 Korean Society of Civil Engineers

DOI 10.1007/s12205-015-0602-y pISSN 1226-7988, eISSN 1976-3808
www.springer.com/12205
TECHNICAL NOTE

Numerical Simulation of Flow Past Two Circular Cylinders in Tandem

and Side-by-side Arrangement at Low Reynolds Numbers
Huy Cong Vu*, Jungkyu Ahn**, and Jin Hwan Hwang***
Received October 10, 2014/Revised February 28, 2015/Accepted May 22, 2015/Published Online June 22, 2015

··································································································································································································································

Abstract

A numerical simulation was used to compare the characteristics of flows past two cylinders in tandem versus side-by-side
arrangements. Numerical experiments were performed at various Reynolds numbers and with different distances between the two
cylinders. Diverse characteristics of flow, such as drag force, vortex shedding, and pressure distributions were investigated here. In
tandem arrangement, at a certain distance, the drag coefficients of both cylinders change abruptly. However, at other distances, the
drag coefficients vary somewhat linearly with the distance between cylinders. In side-by-side deployment, when the distance is more
than three times the cylinders’ diameter, the higher Reynolds number has a smaller drag coefficient (as in the case of a single
cylinder). At points where the flow pattern, drag, and pressure coefficients change significantly, the critical spatial ratios between the
two cylinders were determined at different Reynolds numbers. In addition to the study of such changes in flow characteristics, the
effect of flow pattern on the pressure field and drag force coefficients, as well as their relationship, was also investigated.
Keywords: drag coefficient, circular cylinder, vortex shedding, wake, separation
··································································································································································································································

1. Introduction using either experimental or numerical methods (eg., Williamson,

Cylindrical structural bodies are easily observed in natural
streams and they significantly modify flow patterns and physical
characteristics, such as drag and lift forces, vortex streets, and
wake structures. The fundamentals of flow around an isolated
single circular cylinder have been well studied (eg., Li et al.,
1991; Kumar and Mittal, 2006; Wissink and Rodi, 2008). In
natural stream, however, cylinder-like structures can be found
not only singly, but also in groups. Groups are, in fact, more
common and cause more complicated flow patterns. For
example, the flows around cylindrical structures were analyzed
to better understand vegetated systems (Nepf, 1999).
The flow around two circular cylinders (which is the simplest
case of a group or multiple structure), has attracted many
researchers (e.g., Li et al., 1991; Williamson, 1985; Mittal et al.,
1997; Meneghini and Saltara, 2001; Surmas et al., 2004; Sumner,
2010; Zdravkovich, 1977). Zdravkvich (1977) suggested classifying
two cylinder arrangements into three types: tandem (two cylinders
are arranged in-line and parallel to the flow direction); side-by-
side (two cylinders are arranged in-line and perpendicular to the
flow direction); and staggered (all arrangements other than the
previous two cases). Studies on flow around two cylinders in
tandem and side-by-side arrangements have been carried out
1985; Huhe-Aode et al.,1985; Li et al., 1991; Surmas et al.,
2004; Mittal et al., 1997; Meneghini and Saltara, 2001; Sharman
et al., 2005; Lijungkrona, et al., 1991; Zhou and Yiu, 2006).
These investigators found that flow characteristics depend on the
Reynolds number (Re) and on the ratio of the distance between the
centers of the two cylinders (L) and their combined diameter (D).
Flow pattern around cylinders undergoes a sudden transformation
at a critical spacing ratio, (L/D)c. The critical spacing ratio varies
with the Reynolds number (Sumner, 2010). In the tandem
arrangement, if the spacing ratio L/D is smaller than (L/D)c, there
is no vortex shedding from the upstream cylinder, while two
vortices could occur on both cylinders for other L/D values. This
was also found to be true for two cylinders in side-by-side
arrangements.
Previous studies have established the relationship between L/D
and the variations of drag coefficients in side-by-side and tandem
arrangements (e.g., Mittal et al., 1997; Surmas et al., 2004).
However, many questions relating to flows past two cylinders
remain unstudied, as both the location of the cylinders as well as
the Reynolds number interact to affect the flow conditions in a
complex manner. As limited cases of L/Ds were examined in the
previous studies (Mittal et al., 1997; Surmas et al., 2004;
Meneghini and Saltara, 2001), the sensitivity of flow characteristics,

*Ph.D., Candidate, Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Dongguk University, Seoul 100-715, Korea (E-mail: vhcongtltd@yahoo.com.vn)
**Member, Research Fellow, Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Seoul National University, Seoul 151-744, Korea (E-mail: ahnjk@snu.ac.kr)
***Member, Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil & Environmental Engineering, Seoul National University, Seoul 151-744, Korea (Corresponding Author, E-
mail: jinhwang@snu.ac.kr)

−1−
 Huy Cong Vu, Jungkyu Ahn, and Jin Hwan Hwang
such as the mean drag coefficient and flow pattern, was not fully
investigated, along with small adjustments of L/D, especially
around the critical spacing ratio.
Previous studies have reported slightly different ranges for the
critical spacing ratio. An experimental study by Huhe-Aode et
al. (1985), reported that (L/D)c = 4.5~5 for Re =100; (L/D)c =
3.5~4 for Re = 300; and (L/D)c = 3~3.5 for Re =1000. On the
other hand, numerical studies have reported different ranges: (L/
D)c = 3 at Re = 100 (Li et al., 1991); and (L/D)c = 3.75~4 at Re =
100 (Sharman et al., 2005). Moreover, these studies (numerical
and experimental) explored limited and small L/D values, and
did not cover the range where the two cylinders become
independent from each other. Therefore, more cases should be
investigated to find the flow characteristics around two cylinders,
especially with large spacing and with several different L/D
ratios around the critical spacing.
Furthermore, only a few previous studies provided comparable
measurements of the drag force coefficient, pressure coefficient,
and flow pattern in a single set of experiments; therefore, it is
difficult to see the overall trend from these measurements. The
variations of pressure characteristics on cylinders with the
respect to the spacing ratio and Reynolds numbers should also be
investigated, to determine their relationship with flow patterns.
This study tried to obtain the flow characteristics around
cylinders for wide ranges of L/D in tandem and side-by-side
arrangements. The sensitivities of drag force, pressure coefficient,
and flow patterns were examined with respect to the Reynolds
numbers and L/D. Smaller adjustments of L/D were made
compared to previous studies to find the critical spacing ratio,
where drag force varies significantly, and larger spacing ratios
were investigated to determine the limit of influence of one
cylinder on the other.
2. Numerical Model and Validation
Computational fluid dynamics, CFD, has been used by previous
researchers to calculate the flow around single or multiple
cylinders for a wide range of Reynolds numbers (e.g., Lam et al.,
2008). In the present work, a CFD software, Fluent, which is
based on the finite volume method to solve the Navier-Stokes
equation, was used. The equation for the conservation of mass,
or the continuity equation, is as follows:
∂ρ
------ + ∇ ( ρv ) = Sm
∂t
where ρ is density of water, t is time, v is velocity, and Sm is sink
or source of mass (Hwang et al., 2006). In the present study, Sm
was zero.
The momentum equation is:
∂
---- ( ρv ) + ∇ ⋅ ( ρvv ) = – ∇p + ∇ ⋅ ( τ ) + ρg + F
∂t
where p is the static pressure, τ is the stress tensor, and ρg and
F are the gravitational body force and external body force,
respectively.
The stress tensor τ is given by:
T 2
τ = µ ( ∇v + ∇v ) – --- ( ∇ ⋅ vI) (3)
3
where µ is the dynamic viscosity, I is the unit tensor, and the
second term on the right hand side is the effect of volume
dilation (ANSYS, 2010).
The Shear Stress Transport (SST) k-omega model was applied
to simulate the turbulent flow. The reason for choosing the SST
k-omega model will be discussed later. The Semi-Implicit Pressure
Linked Equation, SIMPLE, scheme was used to solve the coupled
equations of the pressure and velocity fields. The convective term
was discretized by a second order upwind scheme.
Figure 1 shows schematic diagrams of the computational
domains to simulate flows around single and two cylinders. The
computational domains were meshed with multi-block grid
systems, which consist of body-fitted grids around the cylinders
and rectangular grids for the rest of the domain. Finer cells were
used near the cylinder surface, whereas coarser cells were
adopted near the wall boundary. Fig. 2 shows the grid around a
cylinder. Depending on the distance between two cylinders,
the number of grid cells varies, with about 226,000~228,400
and 228,000~304,000 grid cells for side-by-side and tandem
arrangements, respectively.
The test for the grid independence of the flows around a single
cylinder (Fig. 1(a)) was performed with three mesh resolutions.
The numbers of grid cells employed around the circumference of
the cylinder were 160, 240, and 320. The Reynolds number, as
defined below in Eq. (4), was set at 200 for this test.
ρU oD
Re = -------------
- (4)
µ
where Uo is the free stream velocity.
The computational domain and boundary conditions for a
single cylinder were the same as that of two cylinders cases.
Velocity and pressure were uniformly introduced as the upstream
and downstream boundary conditions, respectively. No-slip
boundary conditions were imposed on the cylinder surface and
the periodic boundary was used at the side walls. The convergence
criterion for the inner iterations was 10−6 for the continuity,
momentum, and energy equations.
The drag force is calculated by integrating the pressure and
(1) skin friction contribution:
2π 2π
Fd = ∫ Rpcosθ dθ + ∫ Rτw sinθdθ (5)
0 0
(2)
Fig. 1. Computational Domain for: (a) Single Cylinder, (b) Two Cyl-
inders in Tandem, (c) Two Cylinders Side-by-side
−2− KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Numerical Simulation of Flow Past Two Circular Cylinders in Tandem and Side-by-side Arrangement at Low Reynolds Numbers

Table 1. The Calculated and Measured Results for the Flow Around
a Single Cylinder
Re Investigator Cd St
60 Tritton (1959) (Re=60,5) 1.47 -
Current work (Nc*=240, SST k-w) 1.468 0.137
100 Su and Kang (1999) 1.36 0.163
Lam et al. (2008) 1.36 0.16
Meneghini and Saltara (2001) 1.37 0.165
Mahir and Altac (2008) 1.368±0.029 0.172
Liu et al. (1998) 1.35±0.012 0.164
Ding et al. ( 2007) 1.356±0.01 0.166
Fig. 2. The Computational Mesh (every third grid point is dis- Current work (Nc*=240, SST k-w) 1.366 0.16
played) 200 Lam et al. (2008) 1.32 0.196
Meneghini and Saltara (2001) 1.3 0.196
Williamson (1996) - 0.183
where Fd is the drag force acting on the cylinder, R (=D/2) is the
Norberg (2001) 1.3-1.35 0.19-0.21
radius of the cylinder, τw is the local wall shear stress, and θ is the
Zhang and Dalton (1998) 1.32 0.198
angular displacement from the front stagnation point (θ = 0o).
Ding et al. (2007) 1.348±0.05 0.196
The drag force coefficient, Cd, is given by:
Liu et al. (1998) 1.31±0.049 0.192
2π 2π
2Fd
-=1 1 Current work (Nc*=160, SST k-w) 1.38 0.191
Cd = ------------- --- ∫ Cp cosθdθ + ---------2 ∫ τ w sinθ dθ (6)
ρUoD 2 0
2 Current work (Nc*=240, SST k-w) 1.33 0.186
ρUo 0
Current work (Nc*=320, SST k-w) 1.303 0.182
where Cp is pressure coefficient, as defined in Eq. (7). The first Current work (Nc*=240, K-ε) 1.2 -
term on the right hand side is the pressure drag coefficient (Cdp) 1000 Braza et al. (1986) 1.21 -
and the second term is the friction drag coefficient (Cdf). Current work (Nc*=240, SST k-w) 1.259 0.2
Nc: the number of grid cells on cylinder; SST k-w and K-ε are turbulent
C p = ( p – p∞ ) ⁄ ⎛ --- ρU0⎞
1 2
(7) models.
⎝2 ⎠
In addition to the drag force coefficients, the Strouhal number
is defined as: comparison. While the k-epsilon has been widely used in coastal
models (Jang et al., 2012), we chose SST k-omega model here.
St = fs D ⁄ Uo (8)
The Cd and St showed good agreement with the previous
where fs is the shedding frequency, evaluated by the time series numerical and experimental data for the SST k-omega model,
of the lift force coefficient using Fourier analysis (Meneghini while the k-epsilon model has a smaller drag coefficient
and Saltara, 2001; Surmas et al., 2004). For example, the power (compared with other results). This may be attributed to the
spectrum of the lift force coefficient for a single cylinder at Re = improvement of SST k-omega compared with k-epsilon models
200 is shown in Fig. 3. There is one dominant peak that reflects in predicting the flow separation under adverse pressure
the Strouhal number. gradients (Bardina et al., 1997). The separation is an important
For validation, the drag coefficients and Strouhal numbers for behavior of flow when it passes a circular cylinder. Therefore,
a single cylinder were summarized in Table 1. Two turbulent considering the accuracy of SST k-omega model results
models, SST k-omega and k-epsilon (Standard), were used for compared with the k-epsilon model results, an SST k-omega
model with 240 grid cells around the cylinder was used here.
The distribution of pressure coefficients around a single
cylinder, as defined by Eq. (7) at Reynolds numbers of 50, 100,
and 200 were calculated (shown in Fig. 4). The Cp distributions
around the cylinder were symmetric about the position of θ =
180o; hence this figure only shows Cp for a half of a cylinder. The
maximum pressure coefficient was observed at the frontal
position (θ = 0o); the pressure coefficient then deceases (in
general) as θ increase to 180o. Such trends agree well with the
results of Lixia et al. (2013).
The drag coefficient data for two cylinders in side-by-side and
tandem arrangements were compared with data obtained by
Fig. 3. Power Spectum of the lIft Coefficient Against the Strouhal Surmas et al. (2004), and Meneghini and Saltara (2001), for Re =
Number for Re = 200 200 (as shown in Fig. 5). Their data were limited to L/D = 1.5, 2,

Vol. 00, No. 0 / 000 0000 −3−

 Huy Cong Vu, Jungkyu Ahn, and Jin Hwan Hwang
Fig. 4. Pressure Coefficient Distribution Around A Single Cylinder
at Different Reynolds Numbers
3, and 4. Fig. 5(a) shows that the drag coefficients of both
cylinders in tandem arrangement agree well with results obtained
by both Surmas et al. (2004) and Meneghini and Saltara (2001).
The drag coefficients of upstream, Cd1, and downstream
cylinders, Cd2, gradually change as L/D increases, until around L/D
= 4. At L/D = 4, where the critical spacing exists, and there is a
discontinuous jump of drag coefficients for both upstream and
downstream cylinders. Before this jump, especially, Cd2 can have
negative value (as will be explained in detail in sections 3.1.2
and 3.1.3). After this jump, the drag coefficients gradually
decrease as L/D increases. The sudden increase of drag
coefficient was clarified by Alam et al. (2003a) with physical
experiments for a high Reynolds number, Re = 6.5 × 104 (see
Fig. 5(a)).
In engineering problems, estimating drag force values is
always important and such sudden increase or decrease in drag
forces can lead to major unexpected problems; therefore, they
need to be studied extensively. However, there is a lack information
on the jumps in drag coefficient at the critical spacing at low
Reynolds numbers. It should be noted that Surmas et al. (2004)
and Meneghini and Saltara (2001) did not discuss in detail either
this discontinuity or the trends of Cd when L/D increases over 4,
Fig. 5. Mean Drag Coefficient Compared with Previous Results at Re = 200 (except for Alam et al. (2003)) for: (a) Tandem, (b) Side-by-
side Arrangement
−4−
because they studied limited cases of L/D. For a side-by-side
arrangement, as in Fig. 5(b), the drag coefficient decreases
suddenly as L/D increases from 1.1 to 1.5, and then increases
again to a local maximum at around L/D = 2. After that, the drag
coefficient decreases gradually. There trend agrees well with that
observed by Surmas et al. (2004), except for L/D = 1.5. On the
other hand, Meneghini and Saltara (2001) reported a smaller
drag coefficient.
Overall, as the results from previous calculations and agree
well with data from the present experiments, the present results
are valid for appropriately simulating the flows around two
cylinders.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1 Tandem Arrangement
In this experiment, the wakes developing behind the upstream
cylinder affect the flow around the downstream cylinder. Below,
we discuss the details of flow patterns, drag coefficients, and
pressure coefficient distributions around two cylinders with
respect to Re and L/D.
3.1.1 Flow Pattern
Depending on the distance between the cylinders and the
background flow speed, flows around each cylinder may show
different patterns (Zdravkovic, 1987; Lijungkrona et al., 1991;
Zhou and Yiu, 2006). Therefore, flow patterns were examined by
changing L/D and Reynolds number. Flow patterns can be
classified into four types based on the location and the wake
patterns that developed behind each cylinder (similar to Zhou
and Yiu (2006)): (i) no vortex shedding, “NV”, at small L/D and
low Reynolds numbers; (ii) single body regime, “SB”, named
the extended-body regime by Zhou and Yiu (2006), at small L/D
where two cylinders are close and behave like a single body; (iii)
reattachment regime, “RG”, at intermediate L/D, where the free
shear layer from the upstream cylinder reattaches to the downstream
cylinder, (iv) vortex shedding regime, “VS”, named the co-
shedding regime by Zhou and Yiu (2006), at large L/D, where
two vortices occur on both cylinders.
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Numerical Simulation of Flow Past Two Circular Cylinders in Tandem and Side-by-side Arrangement at Low Reynolds Numbers
Figure 6 shows flow patterns around cylinders under various
conditions. At Re = 60 and 100, there is no vortex shedding
when L/Ds are less than 5.5 and 4.2, respectively, as seen in Figs.
6(a), (b), and (c). In these cases, the role of the downstream
cylinder was similar to the splitter plate, which prevents the
appearance of vortex shedding, as indicated by Anderson and
Szewczyk (1997). Ding et al. (2007) also found that vortex
shedding disappeared at Re = 100 with L/D = 2.5. Vortex
shedding occurs even with a small L/D (of 1.5), for Re = 200 and
1000, as seen in see Figs. 6(m) and (n). The free shear layer from
the upstream cylinder covers the downstream one completely.
So, the two cylinders behave as a single body and there is only
one vortex street behind the cylinders. Zhou and Yiu (2006)
investigated flow patterns and reported similar results at
Reynolds number of 7000. According to their studies, the single
vortex shedding regime occurs at 1 < L/D < 2.
For intermediate L/D (L/D = 5.5 for Re = 60, L/D = 3 ~ 3.9 for
Re = 200, and L/D = 3 for Re = 1000), the downstream cylinder
is far enough not to be covered by the shear layer. The shear
layer reattaches onto the surface of the downstream cylinder, as
shown in Fig. 6(e) for Re = 60; (p), (r), and (t) for Re = 200; and
(q) for Re = 1000. The attachment of the shear layer to the
downstream cylinder is marked by the increase of the pressure
coefficient at the reattachment point on the downstream
Fig. 6. Flow Pattern Shown by Vorticity Distribution Around Cylin-
ders at Different Spacing Ratios, and at Re of: (a) 60, (b)
100, (c) 200, (d) 1000. NV: No-vortex; SB: Single Body;
RG: Reattachment Regime; VS: Vortex Shedding Regime
Vol. 00, No. 0 / 000 0000
cylinder’s surface (Li et al., 1991; Alam et al., 2003a). These
attachment points will be discussed in section 3.1.3.
At higher values of L/D (L/D > 6, 4.2, 4, and 3.2 for Re = 60,
100, 200, and 1000, respectively), the downstream cylinder is
located outside the vortex region formed by the upstream
cylinder. Thus, the separated shear layer formed by the upstream
cylinder does not reattach to the downstream cylinder. Vortex
shedding occurs from both upstream and downstream cylinders
as shown in Figs. 6(g) - (i) for Re = 60, (f) - (k) for Re = 100; (w)
- (y) for Re = 200 and (s) - (z) for Re = 1000. This type of flow
pattern is classified as the vortex shedding flow pattern (VS).
The “VS” regime, found at L/D = 4 for Re = 200, is consistent
with the results obtained by both Surmas et al. (2004) and
Meneghini and Saltara (2001). The vortex shedding of the
upstream cylinder becomes obvious as L/D increases. The free
shear layer from the upstream cylinder rolls up into vortices
before striking the downstream cylinder. It is clear that at low Re,
the wakes behind the upstream cylinder are more elongated
(compared with cases of higher Re), as shown in Figs. 6(i) and
(k). This suggests that the vortex at low Re requires a larger L/D
to roll up completely.
The flow patterns around two tandem cylinders with respect to
L/D and Reynolds number are summarized in Fig. 7. Clearly, the
flow patterns around two tandem cylinders can be classified into
four categories depending on L/Ds and the Reynolds numbers.
At the lower Reynolds numbers of 60 and 100, with the smaller
L/D, no vortex shedding was observed behind either upstream or
downstream cylinders. On the other hand, the single body regime
with one vortex behind both cylinders was found at a small L/D
(=1.5), at the higher Reynolds numbers of 200 and 1000. The
higher Reynolds number and the smaller L/D (such as L/D > 5.5
~6 for Re = 60 and L/D > 3~3.2 for Re = 1000) are necessary for
the occurrence of the vortex shedding regime.
The critical spacing ratio, (L/D)c, marks the transformation of
the flow pattern into the vortex shedding regime. The (L/D)c is in
the range of: 5.5~6 for Re = 60, Figs. 6(e) and (g); 4~4.2 for Re =
100, Figs. 6(b) and (d); 3.9~4 for Re = 200, Figs. 6(t) and (w);
and 3~3.2 for Re = 1000, Figs. 6(q) and (s). At critical spacing
ratios, the force and pressure coefficients also show a significant
change, which will be discussed in section 3.1.2 and 3.1.3. For
Re = 200 and 1000, the critical spacing ratios agree well with the
Fig. 7. Classification of Flow Patterns for Two Tandem Cylinders
−5−
 Huy Cong Vu, Jungkyu Ahn, and Jin Hwan Hwang
experimental data reported by Huhe-Aode et al. (1985), who
reported (L/D)c = 3.5~4 for Re = 300, and (L/D)c = 3~3.5 for Re
= 1000. However, for Re = 100, (L/D)c = 4~4.2 (the computed
value from this study), is smaller than (L/D)c = 4.5~5 for Re =
100, as reported by Huhe-Aode et al. (1985); and larger than (L/D)c
= 3.75~4, as reported by Sharman et al. (2005), as well as (L/D)c
= 3 as calculated by Li et al. (1991), both for Re = 100. This
disagreement may be due to the coarse grid cells (190 elements)
used in their simulations, in contrast to the present work, which
used more than 226,000 elements.
3.1.2 Force Coefficient
The drag coefficient ratios Cd1/Cdo (upstream) and Cd2/Cdo,
(downstream) in the various conditions are shown in Fig. 8,
where Cdo is the drag coefficient for a single cylinder. Within a
single body’s reattachment regime (L/D < 5.5, 3.9, and 3 for Re =
60, 200, and 1000, respectively), the drag coefficients of the
upstream cylinder are smaller than Cdo, because the downstream
cylinder affects the upstream flow conditions.
The placement of a cylinder downstream results in an increase
in the static pressure behind the upstream cylinder (compared
with the static pressure for a single cylinder). For Re = 200, Cp at
the rear of a cylinder with L/D = 3 and 3.9 is larger than Cp at the
rear of a single cylinder. This leads to the decrease of the drag
coefficient of the upstream cylinder. Surmas et al. (2004), and
Meneghini and Saltara (2001) also noted the decrease of the
upstream cylinder’s drag coefficients at L/D = 1.5. In fact, Cd1/
Cdo gradually decreases with L/D until the end of reattachment
regime, for this range of L/D (L/D = 5.5, 3.9, and 3 for Re = 60,
200, and 1000, respectively). It is interesting that this transition
of flow pattern accompanies the sudden change of drag
coefficient. At the critical spacing (L/D)c, where flow patterns
change to a vortex shedding regime (at L/D = 5.5~6, 4~4.2, 3.9~
4, and 3~3.2 for Re = 60, 100, 200, and 1000, respectively), the
drag coefficient ratio, Cd1/Cdo, jumps. After this sudden increase,
Cd1/Cdo becomes larger than 1 for Re = 1000, but remains smaller
than 1 for Re = 60, 100, and 200. This indicates that in a tandem
arrangement, the drag force coefficient of the upstream cylinder
does not always decrease, compared with the single cylinder
Fig. 8. Ratio of Drag Coefficient Versus L/D for Two Tandem Cylin-
ders at Re = 60, 100, 200, and 1000
−6−
case. Alam et al. (2003a) observed a similar trend for a Reynolds
number of 6.5 × 104. When L/D is greater than the critical (L/D)c,
the Cd1/Cdo increases for Re = 60, 100, and 200; but decreases
gradually for Re = 1000 as L/D increases.
For the downstream cylinder, when two cylinders are close
together, Cd2/Cdo increases gradually, even becoming negative at
Re = 100, 200, and 1000 (as shown in Fig. 8). As for the reason
why the Cd2/Cdo is negative, it may be because the downstream
cylinder is immersed in a low pressure region formed by the
upstream cylinder. The distribution of Cp around cylinder
corroborates this explanation (see Figs. 9(b) and (d)). The static
pressure coefficients are smaller at the front cylinder than that at
the rear cylinder. Sumner et al. (2005) noted that at these locations,
the downstream cylinder is completely enclosed by the shear
layers that are generated by the upstream cylinder, and a thrust
force pulls the downstream cylinder close to the wake region and
toward the upstream cylinder. Similar to what occurs at the
upstream cylinder, Cd2/Cdo also increases suddenly at the
downstream cylinder, when the flow pattern transitions to two
vortex shedding regimes at L/D = 5.5~6, 4~4.2, 3.9~4, and 3~
3.2 for Re = 60, 100, 200, and 1000, respectively (as shown in
Fig. 8). At the critical spacing ratio, (L/D)c, the Cd2/Cdo increases
more significantly for the downstream cylinder than for the
upstream cylinder. In addition, there is a sharper increase of Cd2/
Cdo at higher Reynolds number.
For Re = 1000 and L/D = 3.2~8, the variation of Cd2/Cdo with
L/D has a concave characteristic. In this range, Cd2/Cdo decreases
from L/D = 3.2 to a minimum at around L/D = 5 and then rises
again. This feature also exists at Re = 100 and 200. Previous
studies by Alam et al. (2003a) at Re = 6.5 × 104 and Sharman et
al. (2005) at Re = 100 also described similar features. In addition,
Fig. 9. Mean Pressure Coefficient Distribution Around Two Tan-
dem Cylinders with Different Spacing Ratios (L/D) and Re:
(a) Upstream Cylinder at Re = 200; (b) Downstream Cylin-
der at Re = 200, (c) Upstream Cylinder at Re = 1000, (d)
Downstream Cylinder at Re = 1000. RG: Reattachment
Regime; VS: Vortex Shedding Regime. Note: Y-axes Scales
differ
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Numerical Simulation of Flow Past Two Circular Cylinders in Tandem and Side-by-side Arrangement at Low Reynolds Numbers
the minimum values in the concavities and the corresponding L/D
values, both, vary with the Reynolds number. The minimum was
found at L/D = 6 for Re = 100 in this study, which agrees well
with the results of Sharman et al. (2005).
The drag coefficient variation may exhibit concave characteristics
because of the changes in the magnitude of vortex shedding
between the two cylinders as L/D increases. At high Reynolds
numbers (such as Re = 1000), the vortex shedding behind the
upstream cylinder appears right in front of the downstream
cylinder, induces a strong back flow in front of the downstream
one and reduces Cd2/Cdo. When L/D > 5, the position of the
appearance of vortex shedding is far from the downstream
cylinder.
In other words, this vortex shedding becomes weaker when it
moves toward front of the downstream cylinder, thus, it is not
enough to reduce Cd2/Cdo. Similarly, at low Reynolds number, Re
= 60, although the vortex shedding appears in front of the
downstream cylinder and produces a back flow, this is weaker
and not enough to reduce Cd2/Cdo. After exhibiting the concave
characteristic, Cd2/Cdo increases gradually with L/D at all
Reynolds numbers. It is interesting to note that the upstream
cylinder becomes an isolated single cylinder (Cd1/Cdo = 1) at L/D
= 14, whereas the downstream cylinder needs a longer distance
to become independent. This trend agrees well with results from
Sharman et al. (2005), for Re = 100 and L/D < 10.
3.1.3 Pressure Coefficients
The pressure coefficients, Cp, on the surface of the upstream
and downstream cylinders are shown in Fig. 9. It is well known
that a cylinder’s drag coefficient consists of two components:
form and skin drags. When flow separates from a cylinder, a low
pressure region occurs in the wake behind it. The difference in
pressure in front of and behind the cylinder results in the form
drag.
For cylindrical bodies in flow fields, Braza et al. (1986) showed
that form drag dominates over skin drag. Hence, they suggested
that the variation of drag coefficient was mainly due to the
variation in pressure. The form drag, Cdp, can be calculated by
integrating the pressure coefficient (Cp) around cylinder,
according to Eq. (6). Therefore, the pressure distribution on the
cylinder determines the drag coefficient characteristics. In other
word, the changes of pressure in Fig. 9 will be consistent with the
change of drag coefficient in Fig. 8, as shown in previous part.
In general, the pressure in the wake behind the upstream
cylinder (θ = 90~270o), is nearly constant and lower than the
pressure in front (θ = 0~90o), as shown in Figs. 9(a) and (c). The
larger the difference between the pressure in front of and behind
the upstream cylinder, the higher the drag coefficient. The drag
coefficient of the upstream cylinder is larger than that of the
downstream cylinder.
Regarding the effect of L/D, the differences in Cps were found
behind the upstream cylinder (θ = 90~270o), as seen in Figs. 9(a)
and (c). In contrast, the region in front of the upstream cylinder
was almost independent from the variation of L/D, suggesting
Vol. 00, No. 0 / 000 0000
that the presence of the downstream cylinder does not affect the
pressure in front of the upstream cylinder. Hence, the variation of
drag coefficient on the upstream cylinder (as discussed earlier) is
caused by the change in pressure behind it. In the region behind
the cylinder, as L/D increases, the “VS” pressure curves become
smaller for Re = 200 (Fig. 9(a)), but larger for Re = 1000 (Fig.
9(b)).
Based on the above discussion and according to Eq. (6), an
increase of the pressure coefficients behind the cylinder results in
the decrease of drag coefficients (and vice versa). These features
completely coincide with the variation of Cd1/Cdo, in which Cd1/
Cdo increases for Re = 200 and decreases for Re = 1000, for flow
following a “VS” pattern (as shown in Fig. 8). Around the
critical spacing ratio (L/D)c, where the flow pattern transfers
from reattachment (“RG”, L/D = 3.9 for Re = 200 and L/D = 3
for Re = 1000) to the vortex shedding regime (“VS”, L/D = 4 for
Re = 200 and L/D = 3.2 for Re = 1000), there is a significant
difference between the pressure coefficient curves even for a
slight change of L/D, as shown in Figs. 9(a) and (c).
As Re becomes larger, differences increase between the pressure
curves. For example, at θ = 180o, the pressure coefficient varies
from -0.5 to -0.75 when the L/D changes from 3.9 to 4 at Re =
200 (Fig. 9(a)), and from -0.65 to -1.1 when the L/D changes
from 3 to 3.2 at Re = 1000 (Fig. 9(c)). These variations in
pressure coefficient curves are accompanied by variations in
drag coefficients. A sudden pressure coefficient drop behind the
cylinder when L/D changes from 3.9 to 4, coincides with a
sudden increase of Cd1/Cdo from 0.762 to 0.969 for Re = 200.
Eventually, when L/Ds increase to 14, the pressure coefficient
distributions gradually converge to that of a single cylinder case.
Because of the flow disturbances generated by the upstream
cylinder, the distributions of the pressure coefficients are
complicated around the downstream cylinder as shown in Figs.
9(b) and (d) for Re = 200 and 1000, respectively. If the downstream
cylinder is submerged in the low pressure region generated by
the upstream cylinder, a low drag force is observed. This drag
force may even be negative if the pressure at the front is smaller
than at the rear.
When two cylinders are close together, the flow patterns are in
the reattachment regime or in transition from reattachment to
vortex shedding regimes, and the pressure coefficients are all
negative over the whole surface of the cylinder. In this case, the
downstream cylinder is entirely located in the low pressure
region caused by the upstream cylinder. Furthermore, at Re =
200 for L/D = 3 and L/D = 3.9 and at Re = 1000 for L/D = 3, the
pressure coefficients at the front (θ < 90o) are smaller than those
at the rear (θ > 90o), as shown in Fig. 9(b) and (d), respectively.
When two cylinders are closely placed, the downstream
cylinder is shielded from the incoming flow by the upstream
cylinder, and thus there is a region of very low pressure in front
of the downstream cylinder. Consequently, the drag coefficient
becomes negative for the downstream cylinder (as shown in Fig.
8). When the flow pattern is in the reattachment regime (L/D = 3
and 3.9 for Re = 200, in Fig. 9(b); L/D = 3 for Re = 1000, in Fig.
−7−
 Huy Cong Vu, Jungkyu Ahn, and Jin Hwan Hwang

9(d)), the local maximum pressure occurs at the location of the

reattachment of the shear layer that separated from the upstream
cylinder (Li et al., 1991, and Alam et al., 2003a). As L/D
increases, this location moves forward. For example, as shown in
Fig. 9(b), the maximum pressure changes its location from 72o to
60o when L/D increases from 3 to 3.9, for Re = 200. At L/D = 14,
the local maximum of the pressure coefficient moves to the front
(θ = 0o), which corresponds to the pressure stagnation point.
Similar to the upstream cylinder, the pressure coefficients are
very different on the downstream cylinder when the flow pattern
changes to the vortex shedding regime. As shown in Figs. 9(b)
and (d), when L/D varies from 3.9 to 4 for Re = 200, the pressure
coefficient changes significantly by approximately 0.5 at θ =
180°. This trend is also found for Re = 1000 (Fig. 9(d)). Changes
in pressure coefficient around the critical spacing were found
consistently with changes in drag coefficients, as shown in Fig.
8. Therefore, it can be seen that the change in flow pattern is
accompanied by the variation in the pressure coefficient and the
drag force on both cylinders.

3.2 Side by Side Arrangement

3.2.1 Flow pattern

In the side-by-side arrangement, three types of flow patterns
exist depending on the distance between the two cylinders: (i)
single body, “SB”, when two cylinders are closely placed and act
as a single body; (ii) biased flow pattern, “BF”, at intermediate L/
D, and (iii) flow pattern with synchronized vortex shedding,
“VS”, at large L/D. These terms for flow patterns are similar to
the terminology defined by Sumner et al. (1999) and Zdravkovich
(1987).
Figures 10(a), (b), (m), and (n) show the flow pattern around
two cylinders at L/D = 1.1. In the single body regime, only one
vortex street appears in the wake, because the cylinder walls are
too close to each other for eddies to form in the gap between
them. Thus, only one eddy is shed from the outside of the two Fig. 10. Flow Pattern Shown by Vorticity Distribution Around Cylin-
ders at Different Spacing Ratios and Re = 60, 100, 200,
cylinders and a single vortex street develops behind them, as
1000. SB: Single Body; BF: Biased Flow, and VS: Vortex
explained by Xu et al. (2003). Shedding Regime
In the intermediate range of L/D, the biased flow pattern
(“BF”) was observed. When L/D is in the range of 2 to 3 for Re =
60, the flow shows a biased flow pattern in Figs. 10(c), (e), and and the two vortices behave more independently.
(g). “BF” patterns were also observed when L/D is between 2 The sensitivity of the Reynolds number to the change of flow
and 2.2 for Re = 100 and Re = 200 (Figs. 10(d), (f), (p), and (r)), pattern was also studied. The “VS” regime appears initially
and around L/D = 2 for Re = 1000 (Fig. 10(q)). In the “BF” regime, when L/D becomes 2.2, 3, 3, and 4, respectively, for Re = 1000,
two vortex-sheddings occur behind both cylinders and they 200, 100, and 60. In the “VS” regime, two vortices exist; they
affect each other. The flows in the gap between the cylinders are may be either out of phase or in-phase (Alam et al., 2003b, and
biased to one side, either forming a narrower wake behind the Williamson, 1985). Alam et al. (2003b) pointed out that vortex
upper cylinder and a wider wake behind the lower cylinder (as shedding (out of phase and in phase) appears independent of the
shown in Figs. 10(d) and (f)) or the reverse (Fig. 10(c)). Xu et al. Reynolds numbers. According to Williamson (1985), the out of
(2003) mentioned similar features with L/D = 1.3 for Re = 450 phase vortex shedding should dominate flow patterns. As
and 1000; and Alam et al. (2003b) reported L/D = 1.4 for Re = suggested by that previous study, in the present simulation, out of
5.5 × 104. When L/D becomes larger, two vortex-sheddings phase vortex shedding was observed in most cases (Figs. 10(s),
appear on both cylinders as shown in Figs. 10(i), (k), (t), (u), (x), (t), (u), and (y)). Only one exceptional in phase vortex shedding
and (y). As L/D increases, the two cylinders affect each other less was observed (Fig. 10(x)).

−8− KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering

 Numerical Simulation of Flow Past Two Circular Cylinders in Tandem and Side-by-side Arrangement at Low Reynolds Numbers
Fig. 11. Classification of Flow Pattern for Two Side-by-side Cylin-
ders
Figure 11 summarizes the variation of flow pattern for side-by-
side arrangements, with respect to L/D and Re. The “SB” regime
occurs at small L/D ratios, regardless of the Reynolds number.
On the other hand, “VS” regimes can develop with a smaller L/D
for higher Reynolds numbers. These results are in accordance
with the experimental observations reported by Sumner et al.
(1999), especially for Re = 1000. They conducted experiments
for Re = 500~3000 and reported single body behavior for 1 < L/
D < 1.1 ~ 1.2; biased flow regimes for 1.1 ~ 1.2 < L/D < 2 ~ 2.2;
and parallel vortex streets for L/D > 2.2.
3.2.2 Force Coefficient
The mean drag coefficient versus the gap spacing ratio is
shown in Fig. 12. The simulated results are presented in terms of
drag coefficient reduction, Cds/Cdo, defined as:
Cds ( Cd1 + Cd2 )
------- = -------------------------
C do 2C do
where Cds is the mean drag coefficient of the systems, and
subscripts “1” and “2” refer to the upper and the lower cylinder,
respectively.
When two cylinders were closely placed with L/D = 1.1, the
Fig. 12. Ratio of Drag Coefficient (Cds/Cdo) Versus L/D for Two
Side-by-side Cylinders at Re = 60, 100, 200, and 1000
Vol. 00, No. 0 / 000 0000
Cds/Cdo increased with an increase in the Reynolds number (Fig.
12), and the Cds/Cdo = 1.44, 1.61, 1.72, and 1.85 for Re = 60, 100,
200, and 1000, respectively. Around L/D = 1.1~2, the drag
coefficient suddenly drops but in all L/D ranges, the ratio
increases with the Reynolds numbers. At L/D = 14, the drag
coefficients are 97.6, 98.8, 99.2, and 99.6% of the single cylinder
case for Re = 60, 100, 200, and 1000, respectively. In these cases,
cylinders became independent. Surmas et al. (2004) investigated
the effect of L/D on drag coefficient with L/D = 1.5, 2, 3, and 4
and found that the Cds/Cdo were 1.17, 1.19, 1.16, and 1.11,
respectively. Their values agree well with the present study’s
values of Cds/Cdo = 1.1, 1.2, 1.15, and 1.1. Additionally, it was
found that when the distance becomes 14 times larger than
diameter (L/D = 14), each cylinder (in the side-by-side arrangement)
behaves independently, like a single cylinder.
3.2.3 Pressure Coefficient
A quantitative analysis of the features of pressure distributions
will improve the understanding of the effect of the flow
characteristics (such as drag coefficient) on cylinders. In fact, the
pressure drag coefficient is a direct result of the pressure
distribution on the surface of the cylinder. In this section, we
present the numerical results for the distribution of pressure
coefficient along the surface of two cylinders in the side-by-side
arrangement.
Figure 13 shows the time averaged pressure coefficients (Cp)
of the upper cylinder. When flows are time averaged, upper and
lower cylinders have symmetric flow patterns and characteristics.
The angle (θ) at the front of the cylinders is in the range of 0~90o
and 270~360° and the rear angle in the range of 90~270°. In
general, from the stagnant point (θ = 0o) to the separation point,
Cps show positive values; and except in that range, the values are
(9) negative. When L/D is large and the two cylinders are independent
from each other, Cps are symmetric upto θ = 180o; but as the
distance ratio of L/D decreases, the asymmetry increases. The
asymmetric behavior of the pressure distribution indicates that
there are differences in flow structure between the upper and
lower sides of each cylinder, and this is caused by the effect of
the neighboring cylinder. For example, when L/Ds are 1.1 and
1.5, Cps show higher values (in the range of 300~340o, rather
than 0~45o). When the L/D becomes 14, Cps are almost
symmetric upto θ = 180 o.
Due to turbulence at higher Reynolds numbers, the magnitude
of Cps behind the cylinders (θ = 90~270o) decreases, and is
accompanied by strong vortex shedding (Lijungkrona et al.,
1991). At L/D = 1.1, the flow for two cylinders looks like that of
a single elongated body normal to the stream, with the high
pressure region of Cp at the front (θ = 300~340o), as seen in Fig.
13. This high Cp region suggests an explanation for why the drag
coefficient is largest at L/D = 1.1 (Fig. 12). At L/D = 1.1, the
stagnation points located by the maximum Cps are at 322o, 325o,
328o, and 334o for Re = 60, 100, 200, and 1000, respectively
(Fig. 13). As the Reynolds number increases, the stagnation
points move further upstream, as expected. Meanwhile, at L/D =
−9−
 Huy Cong Vu, Jungkyu Ahn, and Jin Hwan Hwang
Fig. 13. Mean Pressure Coefficient Distribution Around Upper Cyl-
inder in Side-by-side Arrangement with Spacing Ratio and
Re: (a) Re = 60, (b) Re = 100, (c) Re = 200, (d) Re = 1000.
SB: Single Body; BF: Biased Flow, and VS: Vortex Shed-
ding Regime
1.1, the minimum Cp exists below the cylinders (around θ = 270o
at Re = 1000), indicating a gap-flow of very high speed between
the cylinders (Fig. 13(d)). As L/D increases, the region of high Cp
(θ = 300~340o) becomes narrower, and the stagnation point
moves to the front (θ = 0o). For example, at Re = 200, the stagnation
point moves from θ = 345o to 352o when L/D increases from 1.5
to 2.
The transition of the flow pattern from a single body regime to
the biased flow regime occurs along with a sudden change in the
pressure coefficient, from L/D = 1.1 to 1.5, for all Reynolds
numbers. A big single vortex shedding with low pressure occurs
at L/D = 1.1; but at L/D = 1.5, this is replaced by two smaller
vortices, shedding behind the two cylinders with higher pressure.
This trend in the change of pressure coefficient at the rear from
L/D = 1.1 to 1.5 coincides with the flow pattern change, from
“SB” to “BF” (as shown in Fig. 11), and with a sudden drop in
the drag coefficient (as seen in Fig. 12). Beyond the critical
spacing values, as L/D increases the pressure coefficient curve
gradually becomes symmetric (at θ = 180°), because the effects
between the two cylinders decease. At L/D = 14, the pressure
coefficient curve moves close to that of the single cylinder case;
i.e., the two cylinders become independent.
4. Conclusions
The present study simulated the flows past two cylinders
deployed in tandem and side-by-side arrangements at the various
distances from one another and for various Reynolds numbers.
The flow pattern, drag, and pressure coefficients were investigated
and the results are summarized as follows:
1. Four types of flow patterns were identified for two cylinders
in the tandem arrangement: (i) the no-vortex shedding
regime, which occurs at small L/Ds and low Reynolds num-
− 10 −
bers; (ii) the single body regime, where two cylinders are so
closely placed that there is only one vortex shedding behind
them; (iii) the reattachment regime, where the free shear
layer from the upstream cylinder reattaches onto the down-
stream cylinder; and (iv) the vortex shedding regime, where
two vortices occur behind the cylinders.
2. Three types of the flow patterns were identified for the side-
by-side arrangement: (i) the single body regime; (ii) the vor-
tex shedding regime (with similar characteristics at both
small and large L/Ds); and (iii) the biased flow pattern
regime, observed at intermediate L/D.
3. The calculated Cd, Cp, and critical spacing ratio, (L/D)c, for
flow pattern transformations agree well with previous inves-
tigations. Such flow patterns determine the effect of cylin-
ders on Cd and Cp. There were significant increases (for the
tandem arrangement) and decrease (for the side-by-side
arrangement) of Cd and Cp when any flow pattern transfor-
mation occured.
4. Based on the sudden changes in the flow patterns and Cds, in
tandem arrangements, a different critical distance ratio was
found at different Reynolds numbers: (L/D)c was in the
range of 5.5~6, 4~4.2, 3.9~4, and 3~3.2 for Re = 60, 100,
200, and 1000, respectively. For side-by-side arrangements,
(L/D)c depended less on Reynolds numbers, and was around
1.1~1.5 for all cases.
5. Cd and Cp at (L/D)c vary with the Reynolds numbers and are
related to each other, as expected. The distribution of Cp on
the cylinder surface is correlated with the variation of Cd.
This effect was more obvious at the downstream cylinder
than that at the upstream cylinder for tandem arrangements.
However, even in tandem arrangement, the upstream cylin-
der can be affected by the backwater of the downstream cyl-
inder.
Acknowledgements
This research was a part of the project entitled “Integrated
management of marine environment and ecosystem around
Saemangeum” and “Development of integrated Keum river
estuarine management system” funded by the Ministry of Ocean
and Fisheries, Korea.
References
Alam, M. M., Moriya, M., Takai, K., and Sakamoto, H. (2003a).
“Fluctuating fluid forces acting on two circular cylinders in tandem
arrangement at a subcritical Reynolds number.” Journal of Wind
Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamic, Vol. 91, Nos. 1-2, pp.
139-154. DOI: 10.1016/S0167-6105(02)00341-0.
Alam, M. M., Moriya, M., and Sakamoto, H. (2003b). “Aerodynamic
characteristic of two side by side circular cylinders and application
of wavelet analysis on the switching phenomenon.” Journal of
Fluids and Structure, Vol. 19, Nos. 3-4, pp. 325-346
Anderson, E. A. and Szewczyk, A. A. (1997). “Effects of a splitter plate
on the near wake of a circular cylinder in 2 and 3-dinmensional flow
KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering
 Numerical Simulation of Flow Past Two Circular Cylinders in Tandem and Side-by-side Arrangement at Low Reynolds Numbers
configurations.” Experiments in Fluids, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 161-174,
DOI: 10.1007/s003480050098.
ANSYS (2010). ANSYS Fluent theory guide.
Bardina, J. E., Huang, P. G., and Coakley, T. J. (1997). Turbulence
modeling validation, testing, and development, NASA Technical
Memorandum 110446.
Braza, M., Chassing, P., and Ha Minh, M. (1986). “Numerical study and
physical analysis of the pressure and velocity fields in the near wake
of a circular cylinder.” Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 165, pp. 79-
130, DOI:10.1017/S0022112086003014.
Ding, H., Shu, C., Yeo, K. S., and Xu, D. (2007). “Numerical simulation
of flows around two circular cylinders by mesh-free least square-
based finite difference methods.” International Journal for numerical
method in Fluids, Vol. 53, No. 2, pp. 305-332, DOI: 10.1002/
fld.1281.
Huhe-Aode, Tasuno, M., and Taneda, S. (1985). “Visual studies on wake
structure behind two cylinders in tandem arrangement.” Reports of
Research Institute for Applied Mechanics, Vol. XXXII(99).
Hwang, J. H., Yamazaki, H., and Rehmann, C. R. (2006). “Buoyancy
generated turbulence in stably stratified flow with shear.” Vol. 18,
No. 4, pp. 045104, DOI: 10.1063/1.2193472.
Jang, D., Hwang, J.H., Park, Y., and Park S. (2012). “A Study on salt
wedge and river plume in the Seom-Jin river and estuary.” Journal
of Civil Engineering, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 676-688, DOI 10.1007/
s12205-012-1521-9.
Kumar, B. and Mittal, S. (2006). “Prediction of the critical Reynolds
number for flow past a circular cylinder.” Computer Methods in
Applied Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 195, Nos. 44-47, pp.
6046-6058, DOI: 10.1016/j.cma.2005.10.009.
Lam, K., Gong, W. Q., and So, R. M. C. (2008). “Numerical simulation
of cross-flow around four cylinders in-line square configuration.”
Journal of Fluids and Structures, Vol. 24, No. 1, pp. 34-57, DOI:
10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2007.06.003.
Li, J., Chambarel, A., Doneaud, M., and Martin, R. (1991). “Numerical
study of laminar flow past one and two circular cylinders.” Computers
and Fluids, Vol. 19, No. 2, pp. 155-170, DOI: 10.1016/0045-7930
(91)90031-C.
Lijungkrona, L., Norberg, C., and Sunden, B. (1991). “Free-stream
turbulence and tube spacing effects on surface pressure fluctuations for
two tubes in an in-line arrangement.” Journal of Fluids and Structure,
Vol. 5, No. 6, pp. 701-727, DOI: 10.1016/0889-9746(91) 90364-U.
Liu, C., Zheng, X., and Sung, C. H. (1998). “Preconditioned multigrid
methods for unsteady incompressible flows.” Journal of Computational
Physics, Vol. 139, No. 1, pp. 35-57. DOI: 10.1006/jcph.1997.5859.
Lixia, Q., Norberg, C., Davidson, L., Peng, S. H., and Wang, F. (2013).
“Quantitative numerical analysis of flow past a circular cylinder at
Reynolds number between 50 and 200.” Journal of Fluids and
Structures, Vol. 39, pp. 347-370, DOI: 10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2013.02.
007.
Mahir, N. and Altac, Z. (2008). “Numerical investigation of convective
heat transfer in unsteady flow past two cylinders in tandem
arrangements.” International Journal of Heat and Fluid flow, Vol. 29,
No. 5, pp. 1309-1318, DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheatfluidflow.2008. 05.001
Meneghini, J. R. and Saltara, F. (2001). “Numerical simulation of flow
interference between two circular cylinders in tandem and side-by-
side arrangements.” Journal of Fluids and Structures, Vol. 15, No. 2,
pp. 327-350, DOI: 10.1006/jfls.2000.0343.
Mittal, S., Kumar V., and Raghuvanshi, A. (1997). “Unsteady incompressible
flows past two cylinders in tandem and staggered arrangement.”
International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids, Vol. 25, No.
Vol. 00, No. 0 / 000 0000 − 11 −
11, pp. 1315-1344, DOI: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0363(19971215)
25:11<1315::AID-FLD617>3.0.CO;2-P.
Nepf, H. M. (1999). “Drag, turbulence, and diffusion in flow through
emergent vegetation.” Water Resources Research, Vol. 35, No. 2, pp.
479-489, DOI: 10.1029/1998WR900069.
Norberg, C. (2001). “Flow around a circular cylinder: Aspects of fluctuating
lift.” Journal of Fluids and Structures, Vol. 15, Nos. 3-4, pp. 459-69,
DOI: 10.1006/jfls.2000.0367.
Sharman, B., Lien, F. S., Davidson, L., and Norberg, C. (2005). “Numerical
predictions of low Reynolds number flows over two tandem circular
cylinders.” International Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids,
Vol. 47, No. 5, pp. 423-447, DOI: 10.1002/fld.812.
Su, M. and Kang, Q. (1999). “Large eddy simulation of the turbulent
flow around a circular cylinder at sub-critical Reynolds numbers.”
ACTA Mechanica Sinica, Vol. 31, pp. 100-105.
Sumner, D. (2010). “Two circular cylinders in cross-flow: A review.”
Journal of Fluids and Structures, Vol. 26, No. 6, pp. 849-899, DOI:
10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2010.07.001.
Sumner, D., Richards, M. D., and Akosile, O. O. (2005). “Two staggered
circular cylinders of equal diameter in cross-flow.” Journal of Fluids
and Structures, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 255-275, DOI: 10.1016/
j.jfluidstructs.2004.10.006.
Sumner, D., Wong, S. S. T., Price, S. J., and Paidoussis, M. P. (1999).
“Fluid behavior of side-by-side circular cylinders in steady cross-
flow.” Journal of Fluids and Structures, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 309-338,
DOI: 10.1006/jfls.1999.0205.
Surmas, R., Stantos Luis, O. E., and Philippi, P. C. (2004). “Lattice
Boltzmann simulation of the flow interference in bluff body wakes.”
Future Generation Computer System, Vol. 20, No. 6, pp. 951-958,
DOI: 10.1016/j.future.2003.12.007.
Tritton, D. J. (1959). “Experiments on the flow past a circular at low
Reynolds numbers.” Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp.
547-567, DOI: 10.1017/S0022112059000829.
Williamson, C. H. K. (1985). “Evolution of a single wake behind a pair
of bluff bodies.” Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 159, pp. 1-18,
DOI: 10.1017/S002211208500307X.
Williamson, C. H. K. (1996). “Three-dimensional wake transition.”
Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 328, pp. 345-407, DOI: 10.1007/
978-94-009-0297-8_113.
Wissink, J. G. and Rodi, W. (2008). “Numerical study of the near wake
of a circular cylinder.” International Journal of Heat and Fluid flow,
Vol. 29, pp. 1060-1070, DOI: 10.1016/j.ijheatfluidflow.2008.04.001.
Xu, S. J., Zhou, Y., and So, R. M. C. (2003). “Reynolds number effects
on the flow structure behind two side-by-side cylinders.” Physics of
Fluids, Vol.15, No. 5, pp. 1214-1219.
Zdravkovich, M. M. (1977). “Review of flow interference between two
circular cylinders in various arrangements.” Journal of Fluids
Engineering, Vol. 99, No. 4, pp. 618-633, DOI: 10.1115/1.3448871.
Zdravkovich, M. M. (1987). “The effects of interference between
circular cylinders in cross flow.” Journal of Fluids and strutures,
Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 239-261, DOI: 10.1016/S0889-9746(87)90355-0.
Zhang, J. and Dalton, C. (1998). “A three-dimensional simulation of a
steady approach flow past a circular cylinder at low Reynolds number.”
International Journal of Numerical Methods in Fluids, Vol. 26, No.
9, pp. 1003-1022, DOI:10.1002/(SICI)1097-0363(19980515) 26:9
<1003::AID-FLD611>3.0.CO;2-W.
Zhou, Y. and Yiu, M. W. (2006). “Flow structure, momentum and heat
transport in a two-tandem-cylinder wake.” Journal of Fluid Mechanics,
Vol. 548, pp. 17-48, DOI: 10.1017/S002211200500738X.