Experimental Study of Stream-Wise Vortex Formation on Swept Circular Cylinders in Cross-Flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A series of experiments has been undertaken on a swept cylinder in cross-flow in the 2m2 open-jet wind-tunnel at Durham University, at a nominal Reynolds Number of 500,000. Boundary layer instability, leading to transition has been attributed to curious sheets of stream-wise vortices on turbomachinery blades and other airfoils. Cylinders in cross-flow can be scaled to model such flows. Empirical analysis of stream-wise vortex pair spacing on cylinders was proposed in 1970 and various researchers have produced experimental data sets at various Reynolds Numbers and sweep ranges. Oil flow visualization was conducted in this work, the goal of which was to fill an important gap in experimental results, a gap of significance to turbine blade designers amongst others. In this test campaign, clear evidence of stream-wise vortices was exposed, the wavelengths of which compared well with the experimental results of others and with theory, although interesting departures were observed at high sweep angles. A physical explanation for the formation of the vortex and pair spacing, particularly at higher sweeps, is proposed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".