Applicability of the Equivalent Diameter Approach to Estimate Vortex Shedding Frequency and Acoustic Resonance Excitation From Different Finned Cylinders in Cross-Flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article explores the applicability of utilizing different equivalent diameter (Deq) equations to estimate the vortex shedding frequency and onset of self-excited acoustic resonance for various types of finned cylinders. The focus is on three finned cylinder types that are commonly used in industrial heat exchangers: straight, twist-serrated, and crimped spirally finned cylinders. Within each fin type, at least three different finned cylinders are investigated. The results indicate that at off-resonance conditions, utilizing the appropriate equivalent diameter collapses the Strouhal number data within the typical Strouhal number variations of an equivalent diameter circular, bare cylinder. However, when acoustic resonance is initiated, the onset and the peak of resonance excitation in all of the finned cylinder cases generally occurred at a reduced flow velocity earlier than that observed from their equivalent diameter bare cylinders. This suggests that although utilizing the appropriate equivalent diameter can reasonably estimate the vortex shedding frequency away from acoustic resonance excitation, it cannot be used to predict the onset of acoustic resonance in finned tubes. The findings of this study indicate that the effective diameter approach is not sufficient to capture the intrinsic changes in the flow-sound interaction mechanism as a result of adding fins to a bare cylinder. Thus, a revision of the acoustic Strouhal number charts is required for finned tubes of different types and arrangements.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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".