Effect of the Separation Distance on the Aeroacoustic Source of Multiple Shallow Cavities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flow over ducted shallow cavities can excite fluid resonant oscillations. A common industrial application is the flow in corrugated pipes that can be modeled as a series of consecutive shallow cavities. In the current study, the effect of the separation distance on the aeroacoustic source of multiple shallow cavities is investigated. The standing wave method (SWM) is used to measure the source, where multiple microphones reconstruct the acoustic standing wave upstream and downstream of the cavities. The effect of the ratio between the separation distance to cavity length is investigated for a practical range from 0.5 to 1.375 for two- and three-cavity configurations. At low and intermediate sound levels, constructive hydrodynamic interference, resulting in a strong source, is observed for the extremum spacing ratios of 0.5 and 1.375. However, at high excitation levels, 10% and higher, the source, slightly but consistently, decreases upon increasing the separation ratio. These trends persist for both the double- and triple-cavity configurations. On the other hand, the separation distance of destructive interference is found to depend on the number of cavities of the tested configuration. Particle image velocimetry (PIV) measurements of the constructive interference cases show strong synchronized vorticity shedding in all cavities. Each cavity contribution to the total aeroacoustic source is then examined by means of Howe's analogy, and the percentage contribution of each cavity is found to depend on the excitation 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".