Flow-Induced Vibration of Flexible Hydrofoil in Cavitating Turbulent Flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The flow-induced vibration and cavitation dynamics of three-dimensional flow past a cantilever flexible hydrofoil are investigated using a large eddy simulation (LES) model, a homogeneous mixture cavitation model and the structural modes superposition method. The present work aims to explore a potential mechanism responsible for a propeller singing behavior, and thus focuses on the synchronized hydroelastic coupling among the pressure pulsation inside the flow field, the cavitation generation and the structural vibration. To begin, we validate the tip vortex dynamics of a flexible hydrofoil against the available experimental. Our results demonstrate that the tip vortex shedding and the blade vibration are responsible for the intense peak in the low-frequency tonal components of the noise source, and the trailing-edge vortex shedding induces broadband components. Additionally, the generation of sheet cavitation induces considerable synchronized hydrofoil vibration (subjected to a flutter-like response), and affects the pressure fluctuations in the flow field, which further dominate the features of the underwater noise sources. It is suggested that the cavitation behavior and structural vibrations co-dominate the characteristics of singing noise from a propeller blade.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".