MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2394905731 · doi:10.1177/1475472x16630669

The effect of upstream edge geometry on the acoustic resonance excitation in shallow rectangular cavities

2016· article· en· W2394905731 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmed Omer, Nadim Arafa, Atef Mohany, Marwan Hassan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Aeroacoustics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerodynamics and Acoustics in Jet Flows
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsResonance (particle physics)VortexAcoustic resonanceMach numberExcited stateExcitationMaterials sciencePhysicsVibrationOpticsEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionGeometryAmplitudeAcousticsMechanicsAtomic physicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The flow-excited acoustic resonance phenomenon is created when the flow instability oscillations are coupled with one of the acoustic modes of a confined duct, which in turn generates acute noise problems and/or excessive vibrations. In this study, the effect of the upstream edge geometry on attenuating these undesirable effects is investigated experimentally for flows over shallow rectangular cavities with two different aspect ratios of L/D = 1 and 1.67, where L is the cavity length and D is the cavity depth, for Mach number up to 0.45. The acoustic resonance modes of the cavity are self-excited due to the development of free shear layers over the cavity mouth. Twenty four different upstream cavity edges are investigated in this study, including round edges, chamfered edges, vortex generators, and spoilers with different sizes and configurations. The results for each upstream cavity edge are compared with the base case where sharp edge is used. Most of the spoiler edges are found to be effective in suppressing the pressure amplitude of the excited acoustic resonance. Hot-wire measurements that were taken along the lateral direction downstream of the spoilers reveal the existence of secondary vortices generated by the spoilers, orthogonal to the cavity shear layer, which results in suppressing the resonance. The performance of each spoiler depends on its specific geometry (i.e. thickness, height, and angle) and the size and strength of the orthogonal vortices that can be generated. A summary of the results is presented in this paper.

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 score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations19
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of AeroacousticsSame topicAerodynamics and Acoustics in Jet FlowsFrench-language works237,207