MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105903615 · doi:10.1115/1.4030270

Flow-Excited Acoustic Resonance of Isolated Cylinders in Cross-Flow

2015· article· en· W2105903615 on OpenAlexafffund
Nadim Arafa, Atef Mohany

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Pressure Vessel Technology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCylinderAcoustic resonanceResonance (particle physics)AcousticsExcitationExcited stateSuperposition principlePhysicsParticle velocityVortex sheddingMechanicsSound pressureAcoustic waveFlow (mathematics)Atomic physicsGeometryTurbulenceMathematicsReynolds number

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The flow-excited acoustic resonance of isolated cylinders in cross-flow is investigated experimentally where the effect of the cylinder(s) proximity to the acoustic particle velocity nodes of the cross-modes is presented in this paper. For the case of a single cylinder, the cylinder's location does not significantly affect the vortex shedding process; however, it affects the excitation level of each acoustic cross-mode. When the cylinder is moved away from the acoustic particle velocity antinode of a specific acoustic cross-mode, a combination of the cross-modes is excited with intensities that seem to be proportional to the ratio of the acoustic particle velocities of these modes at the cylinder's location. For the cases of two and three hydrodynamically uncoupled cylinders positioned simultaneously side-by-side in the duct, it is observed that the first three acoustic cross-modes are excited. When one cylinder is positioned at the acoustic particle velocity antinode of a specific cross-mode and another cylinder is positioned at its acoustic particle velocity node, i.e., a cylinder that should excite the resonance and another one that should not excite it, respectively; the excitation always takes over and the resonance occurs at a further elevated levels. It is also observed that the acoustic pressure levels in the cases of multiple cylinders are not resulting from a linear superposition of the excited level obtained from each individual cylinder which indicates that the removal of cylinders at certain locations may not be a viable technique to eliminate the acoustic resonance in the case of tube bundles.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.232 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations29
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Pressure Vessel TechnologySame topicFluid Dynamics and Vibration AnalysisFrench-language works237,207