Vortex Shedding and Acoustic Resonance of Single and Tandem Finned Cylinders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of fins on vortex shedding and acoustic resonance is investigated for isolated and two tandem cylinders exposed to cross-flow in a rectangular duct. Three spacing ratios between the tandem cylinders (S/De = 1.5, 2 and 3) are tested for a Reynolds number range from 1.6×104 to 1.1×105. Measurements of sound pressure and flow velocity are performed for bare and finned cylinders with three different fin densities. The effect of fins on the sound pressure generated before the onset of acoustic resonance as well as during the pre-coincidence and coincidence resonance is found to be rather complex and depends on the spacing ratio between cylinders, the fin density and the nature of the flow-sound interaction mechanism. For isolated cylinders, the fins reduce the strength of vortex shedding only slightly, but strongly attenuate the radiated sound before and during the acoustic resonance. This suggests that the impact of the fins on correlation length is stronger than on velocity fluctuations. In contrast to isolated cylinders, the fins in the tandem cylinder case enhance the vortex shedding process at off-resonant conditions, except for the large spacing case which exhibits a reversed effect at high Reynolds numbers. Regarding the acoustic resonance of the tandem cylinders, the fins promote the onset of the coincidence resonance, but increasing the fin density drastically weakens the intensity of this resonance. The fins are also found to suppress the pre-coincidence resonance for the tandem cylinders with small spacing ratios (S/De = 1.5 and 2), but for the largest spacing case (S/De = 3), they are found to have minor effects on the sound pressure and the lock-in range.
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".