Numerical Investigation of Vortex Shedding in a Square Cylinder Using RANS and LES Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work deals with the numerical investigation of vortex shedding in a square cylinder. The simulation has been done for 2D turbulent flow. Reynolds number (Re) is considered 22000. In order to resolve the flow field, both Reynolds Average Navier-stokes (RANS) model and Large Eddy Simulation (LES) technique were used. Standard k-epsilon model is considered among different RANS model in order to resolve the mean velocity field and the LES is used to capture the flow separation in the flow field. Both average velocity and velocity fluctuation are determined and compared. Different turbulence properties such as turbulent kinetic energy, turbulent intensity, eddy viscosity and vorticity magnitude are determined and presented for different downstream location to describe the complex flow property in turbulent regime. First the mesh independence test is done by different mesh size. ANSYS Fluent is used for the simulation. A pressured based solver is used with SIMPLE solution scheme, in order to find different flow variables. The results are compared with available published data. There are significant agreements with the experimental data.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".