Vorticity Shedding and Acoustic Resonance Excitation of Two Tandem Spirally Finned Cylinders in Cross-Flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The aeroacoustic response of two tandem spirally finned cylinders is experimentally investigated. Three different pairs of finned cylinders are studied with fin pitch-to-root diameter ratios (p/Dr) ranging between 0.37≤p/Dr≤0.74. The spiral fins are crimped similar to those used in industrial heat exchangers. The results of the finned cylinders are compared with bare, circular cylinders with a modified equivalent diameter (Deq). The spacing ratio (L/Deq) between the cylinders are kept constant at L/Deq=2.00. The Strouhal number (StDeq) of the tandem finned cylinders is found to be higher compared to the tandem bare cylinders, resulting in an earlier onset of coincidence resonance. Moreover, unlike the tandem bare cylinders, the Strouhal number of the finned cylinders did not depend on the Reynolds number, suggesting that the flow characteristics around the finned cylinders are unaffected by Reynolds number. Only the tandem finned cylinders with the lowest fin pitch-to-root diameter ratio (p/Dr=0.37) were capable of exciting precoincidence acoustic resonance. The precoincidence resonance mechanism is similar to that observed in in-line tube bundles.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".