A Parametric Study of the Resonance Mechanism of Two Tandem Cylinders in Cross-Flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A parametric study has been performed to investigate the effect of cylinder diameter on the acoustic resonance mechanism of two tandem cylinders exposed to cross-flow in a duct. Three spacing ratios corresponding to different flow regimes inside the “proximity interference” region are considered, L∕D=1.5, 1.75, and 2.5, where L is the spacing between the cylinders and D is the diameter. For each spacing ratio, six cylinder diameters in the range of D=7.6–27.5mm have been tested. For small diameter cylinders, the acoustic resonance mechanism of the tandem cylinders seems to be similar to that observed for single cylinders; i.e., it occurs near frequency coincidence as the vortex shedding frequency approaches that of an acoustic resonance mode. However, for larger diameter cylinders, the resonance of a given acoustic mode occurs over two different ranges of flow velocity. The first resonance range, the precoincidence resonance, occurs at flow velocities much lower than that of frequency coincidence. The second resonance range, the coincidence resonance, is similar to that observed for single and small diameter tandem cylinders. Interestingly, the observed precoincidence resonance phenomenon is similar to the acoustic resonance mechanism of in-line tube bundles. It is shown that increasing the diameter of the tandem cylinders affects several flow parameters such that the system becomes more susceptible to the precoincidence resonance phenomenon. The occurrence and the intensity of the precoincidence resonance are therefore strongly dependent on the diameter of the cylinders.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".