A Closer Investigation of the Mean Aerodynamic Forces for Two Staggered Circular Cylinders in Cross-Flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two circular cylinders of equal diameter in a staggered configuration, with centre-to-centre pitch ratios of P/D = 1.125 – 4.0, were tested in the subcritical Reynolds number regime, at Re = 3.0×104 – 8.0×104. The incidence angle of the cylinder configuration was varied in small increments from α = 0° – 90° and the mean aerodynamic forces were measured on both the upstream and downstream cylinders. Based on the force measurements, the behaviour of the cylinders was broadly grouped into three categories, depending on P/D. For closely spaced staggered configurations, P/D = 1.125 – 1.25, the aerodynamic forces on both the upstream and downstream cylinders varied significantly with α. Several critical incidence angles were identified for each cylinder that corresponded to local maximum, minimum, or discontinuous behaviour in the forces, which were related to shear layer reattachment and the influence of the gap flow. For moderately spaced staggered configurations, P/D = 1.5 – 2.5, shear layer reattachment and the subsequent transition to gap flow at small α were responsible for the inner lift peak, a corresponding minimum drag, and a loss of lift with increasing α, which becomes more abrupt as P/D is increased. For widely spaced staggered configurations, P/D = 3.0 – 4.0, the two cylinders undergo Ka´rma´n vortex shedding for the entire range of α. At small α, the forces on the downstream cylinder are affected by vortex impingement, and the outer lift peak replaces the inner lift peak. This outer lift peak exhibits some sensitivity to the Reynolds number.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".