MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4303438120 · doi:10.2514/1.j061917

Hilbert–Huang Spectral Analysis of Cavity Flows Incorporating Fluidic Spoilers

2022· article· en· W4303438120 on OpenAlexaff
David Bacci, A. J. Saddington

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerodynamics and Acoustics in Jet Flows
Canadian institutionsGeomechanica (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcousticsFluidicsMach numberAeroacousticsMechanicsPhysicsMaterials scienceOpticsSound pressureEngineeringAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Numerical aeroacoustic analysis was conducted on an M219 cavity geometry, incorporating signature suppression features and leading-edge fluidic spoilers. The numerical model was validated against existing experimental data. The palliative properties of fluidic spoilers were investigated at Mach numbers of 0.85, 1.20, and 1.80 with blowing coefficients of 0.03 and 0.06. The results are presented for the acoustic spectrum, and further analysis was conducted using the Hilbert–Huang methodology. The fluidic spoilers were able to considerably reduce the overall level of acoustic noise and to reduce and/or suppress the resonant modes typical of cavity flows. The effectiveness of the spoilers was a direct consequence of their effect on the detached shear layer, of which the trajectory and coherence were altered. The Hilbert–Huang spectral analysis provided an enhanced understanding of the complex nature of the aeroacoustic behavior of the cavity. Acoustic modes were identified that, together with the Rossiter–Heller tones, governed the behavior of the spectrum. This demonstrated how the generated tones, appearing inside the cavity, were a result of complex nonlinear interactions between shear-layer acoustic instabilities and centrifugal instabilities originating in the flow recirculating in the internal part of the cavity. This also demonstrated that the fundamental frequencies had frequency and amplitude modulation characteristics that spread the energy in a wide bandwidth. This is not captured by classical Fourier analysis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.195 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIAA JournalSame topicAerodynamics and Acoustics in Jet FlowsFrench-language works237,207