Subharmonic tonal noise from backflow vortices radiated by a low-speed ring fan in uniform inlet flow
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to highlight the mechanisms responsible for subharmonic tonal noise, a complete aeroacoustic study of a ring fan in presence of a uniform inlet flow is conducted. Unsteady RANS simulations with a compressible flow solver are used to compute the flow field and identify the acoustic sources on the rotor. The tip clearance recirculation shows upstream vortices that impinge the rotor blades and create the main source of unsteadiness on the fan. Since these vortices rotate at a lower speed than the rotor, the frequency of the impact is lower than the blade passing frequency. The acoustic signature is computed by propagating the noise sources located on the rotor surfaces using two methods: A Ffowcs-Williams and Hawkings analogy in the time-domain and an analytical model in the frequency-domain based on the compact rotating dipole formulation. A comparison with experimental results confirms that the aeroacoustic phenomena responsible for the subharmonic tonal noise are well captured and properly propagated by the acoustic codes.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it