On the Flow-Excited Acoustic Resonance of Isolated Cylinder(s) in Cross-Flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The flow-excited acoustic resonance of single and multiple cylinders in cross-flow is investigated experimentally. The effect of the cylinder(s) proximity to the acoustic particle velocity nodes of the first three acoustic cross-modes is presented. During the experiments, the acoustic cross-modes of the duct housing the cylinders are self-excited. For the case of a single cylinder, it is observed that although the cylinder’s location doesn’t significantly affect the vortex shedding process, it affects the mechanism of the flow-excited acoustic resonance and the levels of the generated acoustic pressure. When the cylinder is shifted away from the acoustic particle velocity anti-node of a specific acoustic cross-mode, a combination of 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 case of two and three isolated cylinders positioned simultaneously side-by-side in the duct, it is observed that when the cylinders are positioned at different acoustic particle velocity anti-nodes of different cross-modes, the intensities of the excited acoustic resonance of these cross-modes are amplified compared to those with single cylinder. Nevertheless, when one cylinder is positioned at the acoustic particle velocity anti-node for 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 supress it, respectively; the excitation always takes over and the resonance occurs. Moreover, as the cylinder moves closer to the duct’s wall, the Strouhal number value decreases due to the interference between the wake of the cylinder and the wall. Therefore, the acoustic resonance for this case occurs at slightly higher flow velocities.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".