MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012734995 · doi:10.1115/1.3148188

Flow-Acoustic Coupling in T-Junctions: Effect of T-Junction Geometry

2009· article· en· W2012734995 on OpenAlexaff
Samir Ziada, Kevin W. McLaren, Y. Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pressure Vessel Technology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerodynamics and Acoustics in Jet Flows
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcoustic resonanceResonance (particle physics)AcousticsCoupling (piping)Flow (mathematics)Oscillation (cell signaling)Bar (unit)Materials scienceMechanicsPhysicsChemistryAtomic physicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The flow-acoustic coupling mechanism in a T-junction, which combines flows from two branches, forming the “cross-bar” of the T-junction, into one pipe, forming the “stem” of the T-junction, is investigated experimentally. The T-junction has a step pipe expansion at its inlets. The shear layer separating from this step expansion is found to excite intense acoustic resonances over multiple ranges of flow velocity. The excited acoustic mode is confined to the branch pipes and has an acoustic pressure node at the centerline of the T-junction. The length of the expansion section of the T-junction is found to control the frequency of the shear layer oscillation and therefore determines the ranges of flow velocity over which acoustic resonances are excited. Introducing asymmetry in the T-junction expansion length has shown little influence on the excitation of acoustic resonance. An additional T-junction arrangement made of rectangular cross-sectional ducts is also investigated to facilitate a flow visualization study of unsteady flow structures in the T-junction during acoustic resonance, and thereby improve understanding of the acoustic resonance mechanism and the nature of the aero-acoustic sources in the T-junction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations14
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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