Cross-Flow Past a Pair of Staggered Cylinders With the Upstream Cylinder Subjected to a Transverse Harmonic Oscillation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The results of an experimental investigation are presented for the cross-flow past a pair of staggered circular cylinders, with the upstream cylinder being subject to forced harmonic oscillation transverse to the flow direction. Flow-visualization of the wake-formation region and hot-film measurements of the wake spectra are reported. Experiments were conducted in a water tunnel for Reynolds numbers, based on upstream velocity, U, and cylinder diameter, D, in the range 1440 ≤ Re ≤ 1680. Results are presented for the case where the longitudinal separation between cylinder centres (for the mean position of the upstream cylinder) is L/D = 2.0, with the transverse separation being T/D = 1.0. As shown by Sumner et al. [1] this configuration corresponds to either the gap vortex pairing and enveloping or gap vortex pairing, splitting and enveloping regimes. The results show that the oscillation of the upstream cylinder causes considerable modification of the flow patterns and regimes compared to what is obtained when the cylinder is fixed. In particular, depending on the frequency of oscillation of the upstream cylinder, sub- and super-harmonic resonances are obtained between the vortex formation frequency and oscillation frequency, as well as the usual fundamental lock-in. These resonances and accompanying wake regimes are examined in detail in the paper.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".