MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2594705560 · doi:10.1121/1.4976341

An experimental study of the wall-pressure fluctuations beneath low Reynolds number turbulent boundary layers

2017· article· en· W2594705560 on OpenAlexaff
Jared Van Blitterswyk, Joana Rocha

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReynolds numberBoundary layerTurbulenceMechanicsBoundary layer thicknessPhysicsNoise (video)Spectral lineMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A more complete understanding of the physical relationships, between wall-pressure and turbulence, is required for modeling flow-induced noise and developing noise reduction strategies. In this study, the wall-pressure fluctuations, induced by low Reynolds number turbulent boundary layers, are experimentally studied using a high-resolution microphone array. Statistical characteristics obtained using traditional cross-correlation and cross-spectra analyses are complimented with wall-pressure-velocity cross-spectra and wavelet cross-correlations. Wall-pressure-velocity correlations revealed that turbulent activity in the buffer layer contributes at least 40% of the energy to the wall-pressure spectrum at all measured frequencies. As Reynolds number increases, the low-frequency energy shifts from the buffer layer to the logarithmic layer, as expected for regions of uniform streamwise momentum formed by hairpin packets. Conditional cross-spectra suggests that the majority of broadband wall-pressure energy is concentrated within the packets, with the pressure signatures of individual hairpin vortices estimated to decay on average within traveling ten displacement thicknesses, and the packet signature is retained for up to seven boundary layer thicknesses on average.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.410

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations28
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent FlowsFrench-language works237,207