Understanding Kármán Vortex Street Effect

  • Thread starter Thread starter nik2011
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Vortex
AI Thread Summary
The Kármán vortex street effect describes the formation of vortices in the flow around a circular cylinder, which changes with varying Reynolds numbers (Re). For Re values below 5, the flow remains attached with no separation, while between 5 and 40, a fixed pair of symmetric vortices forms. As Re exceeds 40, a laminar vortex street develops, leading to vortex shedding. The discussion seeks to understand the reasons behind these regime changes, specifically the forces that cause vortices to appear or shed, and whether research exists that explains these phenomena. The inquiry highlights a desire for clarity on the underlying physics of vortex dynamics.
nik2011
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
I was reading about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeolian_harp" . It is explained that "the harp is driven by von Karman vortex street effect"
So I read about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Karman_vortex_street" . I also read a few other sources on von Karman vortex street effect.

It is known for the steady flow around a smooth circular cylinder that:
  • for Re < 5 no separation of the flow occurs;
  • for 5 < Re < 40 a fixed pair of symmetric vortices exists in the flow;
  • for 40 < Re < 200 laminar vortex street exists in the flow;

My question is why the flow changes its regime? I. e. why the vortices appears for Re > 5 and why the vortices begin to shed (and what force makes them to so) for Re > 40 and what force made them stay (not shed) for Re < 40? Why do they shed in that ("chess-board", "lamp-post", etc) particular order?

And has any research been done on the topic at all? (I mean exactly why the regime changes. I understand that for each separate regime a lot of research has been done)

Can anyone please explain or point me to such an explanation?

Thank you!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Anyone, please?

Sorry, may be I posted to a wrong section of the forum. I am not actually a physicist.
I'm willing to learn to understand the explanation but I need to know if the explanation exists in the first place.
 
Thread 'Help with Time-Independent Perturbation Theory "Good" States Proof'
(Disclaimer: this is not a HW question. I am self-studying, and this felt like the type of question I've seen in this forum. If there is somewhere better for me to share this doubt, please let me know and I'll transfer it right away.) I am currently reviewing Chapter 7 of Introduction to QM by Griffiths. I have been stuck for an hour or so trying to understand the last paragraph of this proof (pls check the attached file). It claims that we can express Ψ_{γ}(0) as a linear combination of...

Similar threads

Back
Top