Numerical simulations of fluid-structure interactions in single-reed mouthpieces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most single-reed woodwind instrument models rely on a quasistationary approximation to describe the relationship between the volume flow and the pressure difference across the reed channel. Semiempirical models based on the quasistationary approximation are very useful in explaining the fundamental characteristics of this family of instruments such as self-sustained oscillations and threshold of blowing pressure. However, they fail at explaining more complex phenomena associated with the fluid-structure interaction during dynamic flow regimes, such as the transient and steady-state behavior of the system as a function of the mouthpiece geometry. Previous studies have discussed the accuracy of the quasistationary approximation but the amount of literature on the subject is sparse, mainly due to the difficulties involved in the measurement of dynamic flows in channels with an oscillating reed. In this paper, a numerical technique based on the lattice Boltzmann method and a finite difference scheme is proposed in order to investigate the characteristics of fully coupled fluid-structure interaction in single-reed mouthpieces with different channel configurations. Results obtained for a stationary simulation with a static reed agree very well with those predicted by the literature based on the quasistationary approximation. However, simulations carried out for a dynamic regime with an oscillating reed show that the phenomenon associated with flow detachment and reattachment diverges considerably from the theoretical assumptions. Furthermore, in the case of long reed channels, the results obtained for the vena contracta factor are in significant disagreement with those predicted by theory. For short channels, the assumption of constant vena contracta was found to be valid for only 40% of the duty cycle.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".