MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2277002988 · doi:10.12943/anr.2012.00007

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

2012· article· en· W2277002988 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Atef Mohany

Bibliographic record

VenueAECL Nuclear Review · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcoustic resonanceResonance (particle physics)CylinderFlow (mathematics)AcousticsCoincidenceMechanicsExcited stateTube (container)PhysicsMaterials scienceAtomic physicsMechanical engineeringEngineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Self-excited acoustic resonance is a design concern in many engineering applications such as tube bundles of heat exchangers and boilers. Since this phenomenon is not yet fully understood, it can be dangerously unpredictable. Due to the complexity of the flow-sound interaction mechanisms in tube bundles, the simplified cases of a single cylinder and two cylinders in various arrangements, tandem and staggered, are investigated in some detail. A summary of these investigations is presented in the current paper. It is found that the aeroacoustic response of two-tandem and side-by-side cylinders in cross-flow can be considerably different from that of a single cylinder under similar flow conditions. Moreover, for the case of two tandem cylinders, the acoustic resonance is excited over two different ranges of flow velocity; the pre-coincidence and the coincidence resonance ranges. The pre-coincidence acoustic resonance phenomenon is found to be similar to the acoustic resonance mechanism of in-line 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)0.000
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 score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.241
Teacher spread0.233 · 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

Citations14
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAECL Nuclear ReviewSame topicFluid Dynamics and Vibration AnalysisFrench-language works237,207