Numerical Simulation of the Flow-Sound Interaction Mechanisms of Two Side-by-Side Cylinders in Cross-Flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A numerical simulation of the flow-excited acoustic resonance for the case of two side-by-side cylinders in cross-flow is performed. One spacing ratio between the cylinders, T/D = 1.25, is investigated, where D is the diameter of the cylinders and T is the center-to-center distance between them. The unsteady flow field is simulated using a finite-volume method at a Reynolds number of 25000. This simulation is then coupled with a finite element simulation of the resonant sound field, by means of Howe’s theory of aerodynamics sound, to reveal the details of flow-sound interaction mechanisms, including the nature and the locations of the aeroacoustic sources in the flow field. At the off resonance conditions two distinct vortex shedding frequencies are observed. These are associated with the wider and narrower wakes of the cylinders. However, when acoustic resonance is initiated the bi-stable flow phenomenon is eliminated and the vortex shedding from both cylinders occurs at a single frequency that is between those observed before the onset of acoustic resonance. Moreover, three main aeroacoustic sources are observed in the wake of the two cylinders. Two aeroacoustic sources are located just downstream of each cylinder and one aeroacoustic source is located in the gap between the cylinders. The numerical results are compared with the experimental results presented in a previous investigation and favourable agreement is obtained.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".