MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309742800 · doi:10.3390/en15228719

Modelling of Flow-Induced Vibration of Bluff Bodies: A Comprehensive Survey and Future Prospects

2022· article· en· W4309742800 on OpenAlexafffund
Ying Wu, Zhi Cheng, Ryley McConkey, Fue‐Sang Lien, Eugene Yee

Bibliographic record

VenueEnergies · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPhenomenology (philosophy)Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equationsBluffComputational fluid dynamicsLarge eddy simulationVibrationReynolds numberComputer scienceExperimental dataTurbulenceEngineeringMechanicsAerospace engineeringPhysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A comprehensive review of modelling techniques for the flow-induced vibration (FIV) of bluff bodies is presented. This phenomenology involves bidirectional fluid–structure interaction (FSI) coupled with non-linear dynamics. In addition to experimental investigations of this phenomenon in wind tunnels and water channels, a number of modelling methodologies have become important in the study of various aspects of the FIV response of bluff bodies. This paper reviews three different approaches for the modelling of FIV phenomenology. Firstly, we consider the mathematical (semi-analytical) modelling of various types of FIV responses: namely, vortex-induced vibration (VIV), galloping, and combined VIV-galloping. Secondly, the conventional numerical modelling of FIV phenomenology involving various computational fluid dynamics (CFD) methodologies is described, namely: direct numerical simulation (DNS), large-eddy simulation (LES), detached-eddy simulation (DES), and Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) modelling. Emergent machine learning (ML) approaches based on the data-driven methods to model FIV phenomenology are also reviewed (e.g., reduced-order modelling and application of deep neural networks). Following on from this survey of different modelling approaches to address the FIV problem, the application of these approaches to a fluid energy harvesting problem is described in order to highlight these various modelling techniques for the prediction of FIV phenomenon for this problem. Finally, the critical challenges and future directions for conventional and data-driven approaches are discussed. So, in summary, we review the key prevailing trends in the modelling and prediction of the full spectrum of FIV phenomena (e.g., VIV, galloping, VIV-galloping), provide a discussion of the current state of the field, present the current capabilities and limitations and recommend future work to address these limitations (knowledge gaps).

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations36
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnergiesSame topicFluid Dynamics and Vibration AnalysisFrench-language works237,207