Aeroacoustic Response of a Single Cylinder With Straight Circular Fins in Cross-Flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The phenomenon of sound generation has been investigated in some detail for the case of bare cylinders; however, the effect of adding fins to the cylinder on the flow–sound interaction mechanism is not yet fully understood. Thus, the aeroacoustic response of a cylinder with straight circular fins in cross-flow is investigated experimentally in this work. During the experiments, the acoustic modes of the duct housing the cylinder are self-excited due to the vortex shedding that emerges from the cylinder's surface. In order to determine the effect of different fin parameters on the onset and intensity of acoustic resonance, 14 different finned cylinders with fin thickness ranging from 0.35 to 1.5 mm and fin density ranging from 4 to 13.7 fin/in. are investigated. It is observed that the finned cylinders experience an earlier acoustic resonance and higher levels of acoustic pressure compared to their equivalent bare cylinders. Moreover, it is observed that, for constant fin spacing, the acoustic pressure amplitude increases and the acoustic resonance occurs at earlier velocities as the fin thickness increases. On the other hand, for constant fin thickness, as the fin spacing increases the amplitude of the acoustic pressure decreases while the onset of the resonance is delayed. Finally, the effect of the cylinder's aspect ratio on the acoustic resonance excitation is presented. It is shown that as the finned cylinders' aspect ratio increases from 4.85 to 11.3, the normalized acoustic pressure during resonance increases drastically. However, for bare cylinders the normalized acoustic pressure during resonance is not highly dependent on the cylinders' aspect ratio. These results indicate that adding fins to the cylinder alters the flow field downstream of the cylinder in a manner that makes it more susceptible to acoustic excitation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".