The Effect of Sound Pressure on the Aeroacoustic Sources Around Two Ducted Tandem Cylinders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An empirical investigation of the spatial distribution of aeroacoustic sources around two tandem cylinders subject to ducted flow and forced transverse acoustic resonance is described. The work builds on a previous investigation by the authors and utilises Howe’s theory of aerodynamic sound. The influence of the sound pressure level in the duct on the strength and location of the aeroacoustic sources in the flow was the main focus of the investigation and experiments to resolve the aeroacoustic source distribution were concentrated at a low main-stream flow velocity (before acoustic-Strouhal coincidence), at a medium mainstream flow velocity (just after acoustic-Strouhal coincidence) and at a high mainstream flow velocity (substantially higher than acoustic-Strouhal coincidence). The sound pressure level was found to have a considerable effect on the “lock-in”’ range of the cylinders which widened as the sound pressure level increased. A proposed normalisation of the net acoustic energy transfer per spanwise location appears to show good metric for the distribution of the aeroacoustic sources in the flow field. Using this, it was found that the amplitude of the sound pressure had a negligible influence on the aeroacoustic sources in the wake and the gap region for all the tested cases apart from the lowest flow velocity. This particular case showed indications that the aeroacoustic source strength and location could be altered for certain changes in sound pressure level.
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".