MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1996792698 · doi:10.1115/pvp2009-78093

Low Order Model Dynamics of the Forced Cylinder Wake

2009· article· en· W1996792698 on OpenAlexaff
Njuki Mureithi, K. Huynh, Anh Tuan Pham

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWakeBifurcationReynolds numberPhysicsKármán vortex streetStatistical physicsFlow (mathematics)Nonlinear systemMathematicsMechanicsClassical mechanicsTurbulenceQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The periodically forced cylinder wake exhibits complex but highly symmetrical patterns. In recent work, the authors have exploited symmetry-group equivariant bifurcation theory to derive low order equations describing, approximately, the dominant nonlinear dynamics of wake mode interactions. The models have been shown to qualitatively predict the observed bifurcations suggesting that the Karman wake remains, dynamically, a fairly simple system at least when viewed in 2D. Preliminary experimental data are presented supporting the feasibility of using 2D simulation results for the derivation of the low order model parameters. A POD analysis of the wake PIV velocity field yields flow modes closely similarly to those obtained via 2D CFD computations for Re in the 1000 range. The paper presents new results of simulations for Re = 200. For this low Reynolds number, the forced Karman wake exhibits rich dynamics dominated by quasi-periodicity, mode locking, torus doubling and chaos. The low Re torus breakdown may be explained by the Afraimovich-Shilnikov theorem. Interestingly, in a previous analysis for the higher Re number, Re = 1000, transition to a period-doubled flow state was found to occur via a route akin to the Takens-Bogdanov bifurcation scenario.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.186 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFluid Dynamics and Vibration AnalysisFrench-language works237,207