Fluid Forces and Vortex Patterns of an Oscillating Cylinder Pair in Still Water With Both Fixed Side-by-Side and Tandem Configurations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Models of cylinders in the oscillatory flow can be found virtually everywhere in the marine industry, such as pump towers experiencing sloshing load in a liquefied natural gas ship liquid tank. However, compared to the problem of a cylinder in the uniform flow, a cylinder in the oscillatory flow is less studied, let alone multiple cylinders. Therefore, we experimentally and numerically studied two identical circular cylinders oscillating in the still water with either a side-by-side or a tandem configuration for a wide range of Keulegan–Carpenter number and Stokes number β. The experimental result shows that the hydrodynamic performance of an oscillating cylinder pair in the still water is greatly altered due to the interference between the multiple structures with different configurations. In specific, compared to the single cylinder case, the drag coefficient is greatly enhanced when two cylinders are placed side-by-side at a small gap ratio, while dual cylinders in a tandem configuration obtain a smaller drag coefficient and oscillating lift coefficient. In order to reveal the detailed flow physics that results in significant fluid forces alternations, the detailed flow visualization is provided by the numerical simulation: the small gap between two cylinders in a side-by-side configuration will result in a strong gap jet that enhances the energy dissipation and increases the drag, while due to the flow blocking effect for two cylinders in a tandem configuration, the drag coefficient decreases.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".