MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2313208646 · doi:10.2514/6.2011-2748

Large Eddy Simulation of Jet Noise Suppression by Impinging Microjets

2011· article· en· W2313208646 on OpenAlexaff
Alireza Najafi­-Yazdi, Phoi-Tack Lew, Luc Mongeau

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerodynamics and Acoustics in Jet Flows
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsJet noiseJet (fluid)Large eddy simulationNoise (video)AcousticsPhysicsAerospace engineeringMechanicsComputer scienceTurbulenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sound suppression by impinging microjets was modeled using Large Eddy Simulation (LES). A Mj = 0:9, unheated jet, at ReDj = 400; 000 was considered. A higher-order, inhouse code was used to solve the compressible Navier-Stokes equations in the neareld. The eects of a circumferential array of microjets were modeled through source terms added to the Navier-Stokes equations. It was observed that the penetration of microjets in the core jet plume induced secondary instabilities in the shear layer which trigger a transition to turbulence close to the nozzle. The fareld sound was calculated using the Ffowcs Williams-Hawkings surface integral methodology. The microjet injection resulted in a reduction of about 4 dB in overall sound pressure levels in almost all observer locations. The power spectral density of fareld sound pressure was reduced by approximately 4 to 6 dB in very low frequency regions compared to those of the base round jet. The dierence between the spectra of the base round jet and those of the microjet setup decreased with increasing frequency. It was also observed that the microjet spectra show higher energy content beyond the cross-over frequencies corresponding to St 0:8, and St 3, for = 30 , and 90 , respectively. These trends are in very good agreement with those observed in experiments.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.490
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations5
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAerodynamics and Acoustics in Jet FlowsFrench-language works237,207