Experimental Investigation of the Acoustic Power Around Two Tandem Cylinders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aeroacoustic resonance of bluff bodies exposed to cross flow can be problematic for many different engineering applications and knowledge of the location and interaction of acoustic sources is not well understood. Thus, an empirical investigation of the acoustically coupled flow around two tandem cylinders under two different resonant conditions is presented. It is assumed that the resonant acoustic field could be decoupled from the hydrodynamic flow field, resolved separately, and then recoupled to predict the flow/sound interaction mechanisms using Howe's theory of aerodynamic sound. Particle image velocimetry was employed to resolve the phase-averaged flow field characteristics around the cylinders at various phases in an acoustic wave cycle. It was found that the vortex shedding patterns of the two resonant conditions exhibit substantial differences. For the first condition, which occurred at low flow velocities where the natural vortex shedding frequency was below the acoustic resonance frequency, fully developed vortices formed in both the gap region between the cylinders and in the wake. These vortices were found to be in phase with each other. For the second resonant condition, which occurred at higher flow velocities where the natural vortex shedding frequency was above the acoustic resonant frequency, fully developed vortices only formed in the wake and shedding from the two cylinders were not in phase. These differences in the flow field resulted in substantial variation in the flow-acoustic interaction mechanisms between the two resonant conditions. Corresponding patterns of the net acoustic energy suggest that acoustic resonance at the lower flow velocity is due to a combination of shear layer instability in the gap and vortex shedding in the wake, while acoustic resonance at the higher flow velocity is driven by the vortex shedding in the wake of the two 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".