MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045809796 · doi:10.1115/pvp2014-28056

Wake Interference Effects for Two Surface-Mounted Finite Cylinders in a Tandem Configuration

2014· article· en· W2045809796 on OpenAlexaff
David S. Sumner, He Li

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerodynamics and Fluid Dynamics Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWakeCylinderDownwashVortex sheddingMechanicsPhysicsReynolds numberGeometryVortexOpticsTurbulenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mean wake of two identical surface-mounted finite-height circular cylinders arranged in a tandem configuration was investigated in a low-speed wind tunnel using a seven-hole pressure probe. The Reynolds number was Re = 2.4×104, the cylinder aspect ratio was AR = 9, and the boundary layer thickness on the ground plane relative to the cylinder height was δ/H ≈ 0.4. Three centre-to-centre longitudinal pitch ratios of L/D = 1.125, 2, and 5 were examined, corresponding to the extended-body, reattachment, and co-shedding flow regimes, respectively. Reference measurements were also made in the wake of a single finite circular cylinder of AR = 9. For the tandem configurations, velocity measurements were made behind the downstream cylinder in two orthogonal vertical planes. Compared to the wake of the single surface-mounted finite-height circular cylinder, the mean downwash and upwash flows for the tandem cylinders, behind the downstream cylinder, were weaker, the mean recirculation zone behind the downstream cylinder was shorter, and the mean wake extended higher above the ground plane, for all three pitch ratios. Marked changes were also observed in the mean streamwise wake vortex structures, compared to the case of the single finite cylinder. For the extended-body and reattachment flow regimes, the tip vortex structures became elongated in the wall-normal direction. In the co-shedding regime, two sets of tip vortices were observed, with the second set possibly originating from the upstream cylinder.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.592
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAerodynamics and Fluid Dynamics ResearchFrench-language works237,207