Numerical Simulation of the Flow-Sound Interaction Mechanisms of a Single and Two-Tandem Cylinders in Cross-Flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A numerical simulation of the flow-excited acoustic resonance for the case of two-tandem cylinders in cross-flow is performed. The spacing ratio between the cylinders (L/D=2.5) is inside the proximity interference region. Similar simulation is performed for the case of a single cylinder. The unsteady flow field is simulated using a finite-volume method. 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. For the case of a single cylinder, acoustic resonance is excited over a single range of flow velocity. The main aeroacoustic source, which causes a positive energy transfer from the flow field to the acoustic field, is found to be located just downstream of the cylinder. For the case of two-tandem cylinders, the acoustic resonance is excited over two different ranges of flow velocity: the precoincidence and the coincidence resonance ranges. For the coincidence resonance range, the main aeroacoustic source is found to be located just downstream of the downstream cylinder, and the excitation mechanism of this resonance range is found to be similar to that of a single cylinder. However, for the precoincidence resonance range, the primary acoustic source is found to be located in the gap between the cylinders. Moreover, flow visualization of the wake structure for the two-tandem cylinders during acoustic resonance shows that for the precoincidence resonance range there is a phase shift of about 90 deg between the vortex shedding from the upstream and the downstream cylinders, which is different from the coincidence resonance range, where the vortex shedding from both cylinders seems to be in-phase.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".