AEROACOUSTIC RESPONSE OF ISOLATED CYLINDER(S) IN CROSS-FLOW AT DIFFERENT LOCATIONS INSIDE A RECTANGULAR DUCT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The flow-excited acoustic resonance of single and multiple isolated cylinders in cross-flow is investigated experimentally. The effect of the cylinder(s) proximity to the acoustic particle velocity nodes of the first three acoustic cross-modes is presented. During the experiments, the acoustic cross-modes of the duct hosing the cylinders are self-excited. For the case of single cylinder, it is observed that although the cylinder′s location doesn′t significantly affect the process of vortex shedding, it affects the mechanism of the flow-excited acoustic resonance and the generated acoustic pressure. When the cylinder is shifted away from the acoustic particle velocity anti-node of a certain acoustic cross-mode, a combination of cross-modes is excited with intensities that seem to be proportional to the ratio of the acoustic particles velocities of these modes at the cylinder′s location. For the case of two and three isolated cylinders positioned simultaneously side-by-side in the duct, it is observed that when the cylinders are positioned at different acoustic particle velocity anti-nodes of different cross-modes, the intensities of the excited acoustic resonance of these cross-modes are amplified compared to those with single cylinder. Nevertheless, when one cylinder is positioned at the acoustic particle velocity anti-node of certain cross-modes and another cylinder is positioned at it′s acoustic particle velocity node, i.e a cylinder that should excite the resonance and another one that should suppress it, respectively; the excitation always takes over and the resonance occurs. Moreover, as the cylinder moves closer to the duct′s wall, the Strouhal number value decrease due to the interference between the wake of the cylinder and the duct′s wall. Therefore, the acoustic resonance for this case occurs at slightly higher flow velosities.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".