Vortex shedding characteristics in the wake of circular finned cylinders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The near wake flow development and vortex shedding characteristics downstream of straight circular finned cylinders are experimentally investigated. Different finned cylinders with the same fin pitch and fin thickness, but different diameter ratios, Df/Dr = 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, are investigated. Particle image velocimetry measurements are carried out at a Reynolds number of Re = 2.0 × 104 based on the cylinder effective diameter (Deff), which corresponds to the sub-critical flow regime. The spatial flow development in the near wake is elucidated using both time-averaged and phase-resolved flow field characteristics. The proper orthogonal decomposition analysis is used to characterize the unsteady vortex shedding process in the wake of the cylinders. The results show that adding fins to the cylinder changes the flow development around it. Moreover, the extent of the recirculation region reduces significantly downstream of the finned cylinders as their diameter ratio increases due to higher flow entrainment between the fins. This causes an increase in both the energy of the primary vortex shedding and the strength of the vortices in the wake. The combination of stronger vortices with amplified periodicity leads to a more energetic vortex shedding process in the wake of the finned cylinders.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".