The impedance boundary condition for acoustics in swirling ducted flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The acoustics of a straight annular lined duct containing a swirling mean flow is considered. The classical Ingard–Myers impedance boundary condition is shown not to be correct for swirling flow. By considering behaviour within the thin boundary layers at the duct walls, the correct impedance boundary condition for an infinitely thin boundary layer with swirl is derived, which reduces to the Ingard–Myers condition when the swirl is set to zero. The correct boundary condition contains a spring-like term due to centrifugal acceleration at the walls, and consequently has a different sign at the inner (hub) and outer (tip) walls. Examples are given for mean flows relevant to the interstage region of aeroengines. Surface waves in swirling flows are also considered, and are shown to obey a more complicated dispersion relation than for non-swirling flows. The stability of the surface waves is also investigated, and as in the non-swirling case, one unstable surface wave per wall is found.
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 | 0.001 | 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".