Effect of yaw angle on flow structure and cross-flow force around a circular cylinder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flow around an inclined circular cylinder at yaw angles of α = 0°, 30°, 45°, and 60° has been numerically studied using the delayed detached eddy simulation at a Reynolds number of 1.4 × 104. Periodic boundary conditions are utilized to minimize the end effect. The focus is to explore the effect of yaw angle on the flow structure and the spatial distribution of the cross-flow forces. For the normal flow case, the modulation of the span-wise averaged lift force coefficient is found to be related to the unstable shear layer. For the inclined cases, contours of the sectional lift force coefficient show that the local vortex shedding staggers in time along the axial span at the early stage of the simulation, when the flow approaches the cylinder. After the flow reaches the quasi-periodic state, the axial difference disappears for α > 45° but not for α = 30°. In particular, the axial difference of the sectional lift force coefficient results in a near-zero value of the span-wise averaged lift force coefficient. The transition from a two-dimensional flow to a three-dimensional one is not captured in the current simulation. However, wake visualization indicates a mitigation of von Kármán vortex shedding when the yaw angle is greater than 30°. Although the Strouhal number is well predicted by the Independence Principle (IP), other flow properties are less agreeable with the prediction by IP.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".