The cylinder end boundaries, whether they be end plates or simple free ends, alter the vortex-shedding mechanism near these boundaries. This effect has in the past usually been overlooked. In a region near an end plate or a free end (ranging from 6 to 15 cylinder diameters in length), the shedding frequency f2 is found to be 10–15% less than the regular Strouhal frequency fs. The latter frequency is observed over the remaining cylinder length. The simultaneous occurrence of two frequencies results in a beat frequency, which is best observed at the junction of the two regions characterized by fs and f2 respectively. A third frequency f3 with fs > f3 > f2 is observed over the entire cylinder length when the cylinder is bounded by two end plates less than 20 to 30 cylinder diameters apart. Here the critical Reynolds number for the onset of shedding is shifted to about 60 and the laminar Reynolds-number range is extended from about 150 to about 250.

The effect of turbulence manipulators on the turbulent boundary layer above a flat plate has been investigated. These turbulence manipulators are often referred to as Large Eddy Break Up (LEBU) devices. The basic idea is that thin blades or airfoils are inserted into the turbulent flow in order to reduce the fluctuating vertical velocity component v' above the flat plate. In this way, the turbulent momentum transfer and with it the wall shear stress downstream of the manipulator should be decreased. In our experiments, for comparison, a merely drag-producing wire also was inserted into the boundary layer.In particular, the trade-off between the drag of the turbulence manipulator and the drag reduction due to the shear-stress reduction on the flat plate downstream of the manipulator has been considered. The measurements were carried out with very accurate force balances for both the manipulator drag and the shear stress on the flat plate. As it turns out, no net drag reduction is found for a fairly large set of configurations. A single thin blade as a manipulator performed best, i.e., it was closest to break-even. However, a further improvement is unlikely, because the device drag of the thin blade elements used here has already been reduced to only that due to laminar skin friction, and is thus the minimum possible drag. Airfoils performed slightly worse, because their device drag was higher. A purely drag-producing wire device performed disastrously. The wire device, which consisted of a wire with another thin wire wound around it to suppress coherent vortex shedding and vibration, was designed to have (and did have) the same drag as the airfoil manipulator with which it was compared. The comparison showed that airfoil and blade manipulators recovered 75-90% of their device drag through a shear-stress reduction downstream, whereas the wire device recovered only about 25-30% of its device drag.Conventional LEBU manipulators with airfoils or thin blades produce between 0.25% and 1% net drag increase, whereas the wire device (with equal device drag) produces as much as 4% net drag increase. These data are valid for the specific plate length of our experiments, which was long enough in downstream extent to realize the full effect of the LEBU manipulators. Turbulence manipulators do indeed decrease the turbulent momentum exchange in the boundary layer by "rectifying" the turbulent fluctuations. This generates a significant shear-stress reduction downstream, which is much more than just the effect of the wake of the manipulator. However, the device drag of the manipulator cannot be reduced without simultaneously reducing the skin friction reduction. Thus, the manipulator's device drag exceeds, or at best cancels, the drag reduction achieved by the shear-stress reduction downstream. A critical survey of previous investigations shows that the suggestion that turbulence manipulators may produce net drag reduction is also not supported by the available previous drag force measurements. The issue had been stirred up by les...

No abstract