Flow Excited Acoustic Resonance of Two Side-by-Side Cylinders in Cross Flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aeroacoustic response of two side-by-side cylinders in cross-flow is investigated experimentally. In order to investigate the effect of the gap between the cylinders on the acoustic resonance mechanism, six spacing ratios between the cylinders have been investigated. These spacing ratios are in the range of T/D = 1.25 to 3, where D is the diameter of the cylinders and T is the center-to-center distance between them. Special attention is given to the bi-stable flow regime, which is reported in the literature for intermediate spacing ratios. During the tests, the acoustic cross-modes of the duct housing the cylinders are self-excited. For the intermediate spacing ratios, T/D = 1.25, 1.35, 1.46 and 1.75, two distinct vortex shedding frequencies at the off-resonance conditions are observed. These are associated with the wider and narrower wakes of the cylinders, as described in the literature. In this case, acoustic resonance occurs at a Strouhal number that is between those observed before the onset of resonance. In addition, the acoustic resonance synchronizes vortex shedding in the two wakes and thereby eliminates the bi-stable flow phenomenon. For large spacing ratios, T/D = 2.5 and 3, vortex shedding occurs at a single Strouhal number at which the acoustic resonance is initiated.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".