Fluid dynamics around three cylinders in presence of small control cylinders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A numerical study is performed to analyze the effect of small control cylinders on fluid force reduction and vortex shedding suppression on the flow past three inline square cylinders using the lattice Boltzmann method. The Reynolds number Re = 160 is fixed while the spacing between the cylinders is taken in the range of 1.0D ≤ g* ≤ 5.0D (where D is the size of the main cylinder) and the control cylinder size is varied from 0.1D to 0.5D. To systematically understand the effect of control cylinders on the forces, a detailed analysis of Strouhal number (St), mean drag coefficient (CDmean), and root mean square values of the drag and lift coefficients is presented in this paper. In this study, it is observed that the average mean drag coefficient (CDmeanaverage) and Strouhal number reached either maximum or minimum values at different values of separation ratio (g*) and small control cylinder size (d). It is found that at (g*, d) = (5.0, 0.0) and (1.0, 0.5), the average CDmean attains its maximum (CDmeanaverage = 0.7813) and minimum (CDmean = 0.0988) values. Furthermore, at (g*, d) = (5.0, 0.3) and (2.0, 0.0) the average St attains its maximum (St = 0.1780) and minimum (St = 0.041) values. It is found that the flow regimes completely change in the presence of control cylinders. In particular, at g* = 4.0 there is a critical flow regime when the size of the control cylinder changes from 0.1 to 0.5. The sudden jump in the mean drag coefficient and Strouhal number for the middle cylinder with their maximum and minimum values also confirms the critical flow regime. The effect of control cylinders within tandem square cylinders has not been studied before.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".