MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904050261 · doi:10.21608/asat.2013.22122

Flow-Sound Interaction Mechanism of Two Side-by-Side Cylinders in Cross-Flow

2013· article· en· W2904050261 on OpenAlexaff
Atef Mohany, Marwan Hassan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Conference on Aerospace Sciences and Aviation Technology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlow (mathematics)Mechanism (biology)Sound (geography)MechanicsAcousticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A numerical simulation of the flow-excited acoustic resonance for the case of two side-by-side cylinders in cross-flow is performed. One spacing ratio between the cylinders, T/D = 2.5, is investigated, where D is the diameter of the cylinders and T is the center-tocenter distance between them. The unsteady flow field is simulated using a finite-volume method at a Reynolds number of 30000. This simulation is then coupled with a finite element simulation of the resonant sound field, by means of Howe's theory of aerodynamics sound, to reveal the details of flow-sound interaction mechanisms, including the nature and the locations of the aeroacoustic sources in the flow field. At the off resonance conditions the vortex shedding from the cylinders occurs at a single frequency with a Strouhal number of 0.217. Moreover, a symmetric wake structure downstream of the two cylinders is observed. However, when acoustic resonance is initiated the symmetric wake structure downstream of the cylinders is eliminated and the vortex shedding from both cylinders becomes antisymmetric. Moreover, two main aeroacoustic sources located just downstream of each cylinder are observed. The numerical results are compared with the experimental results presented in a previous investigation and favourable agreement is obtained.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.827
Threshold uncertainty score0.453

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Conference on Aerospace Sciences and Aviation TechnologySame topicFluid Dynamics and Vibration AnalysisFrench-language works237,207