MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004306531 · doi:10.1115/1.2388995

Acoustic Excitation by Flow in T-Junctions

2006· article· en· W2004306531 on OpenAlexaff
Samir Ziada, A. Scott, David Arthurs

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pressure Vessel Technology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerodynamics and Acoustics in Jet Flows
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStrouhal numberPipingAmplitudePipe flowFlow (mathematics)PhysicsMechanicsDimensionless quantityAcoustic resonanceOpen-channel flowTurbulenceResonance (particle physics)AcousticsOpticsAtomic physicsThermodynamicsReynolds number

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The flow-acoustic nature of sharp-edged T-junctions is investigated experimentally. In this paper, the pipes forming the T-crossbar are referred to as the branches and the pipe forming the central stem of the T-shape is referred to as the main pipe. Four test cases are studied corresponding to: (a) T-junction with flow from each branch into the main pipe; (b) T-junction with flow from one branch into the main pipe, the other branch being closed; (c) T-junction with flow from the main pipe into the two branches, which is the reverse flow situation of the first case; and (d) T-junction with flow from the main pipe into one branch and the other branch is closed, which is the second case with reverse flow. It is found that the flow at the T-junction can excite the pipe acoustic modes to varying degrees, depending on the flow direction and piping configuration. For cases (c) and (d), the dimensionless pressure amplitude of the acoustic mode reaches a maximum at a Strouhal number similar to that of the turbulence broadband peak measured in the separation bubble downstream of the T-junction corner. Cases (a) and (b) exhibit a different type of flow-acoustic coupling. In both cases, the maximum acoustic pressure occurs at a Strouhal number which is different from that observed in the separation bubble. In addition, the pulsation amplitude is substantially stronger than that observed in cases (c) and (d). Detuning the branches weakens the resonance intensity, especially in case (c), which exhibits the strongest acoustic resonance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations13
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pressure Vessel TechnologySame topicAerodynamics and Acoustics in Jet FlowsFrench-language works237,207