MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403982420 · doi:10.1063/5.0237362

Wake interference effects for two surface-mounted cubes in tandem

2024· article· en· W4403982420 on OpenAlexafffund
Bárbara L. da Silva, David S. Sumner, Donald J. Bergstrom

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics of Fluids · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsPhysicsWakeInterference (communication)TandemSurface (topology)MechanicsAerospace engineeringGeometryElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Interference effects on the mean flow field, aerodynamic forces, and vortex shedding in the wakes of two cubes in tandem have been experimentally investigated, considering different boundary layer thicknesses of δ/D=0.8 and 1.3. The cubes had center-to-center longitudinal spacing ratios of L/D=1.5 to 5 and were exposed to an incoming flow with a Reynolds number of Re =7.5×104–9×104 based on the cubes' width D and the freestream velocity. For the thin boundary layer, the flow showed an intermittent regime with two Strouhal numbers for L/D<2.25, a co-shedding regime with synchronized shedding for L/D>2.25, and evidence of a cavity-locked regime around L/D=2.75. The intermittent regime featured flow reattachment but was not bistable, corresponding instead to unsynchronized shedding from both the upstream and downstream cubes. The mean drag force, normal force, and bending moment coefficients were examined across the regimes as functions of L/D and δ/D, showing greater variation for the downstream cube. Particle image velocimetry measurements revealed that the probability of reattachment on the downstream cube decreased, a second horseshoe vortex formed in the gap, and flow separated from the downstream cube's leading edges for high L/D. When increasing δ/D, vortex shedding from the upstream cube was delayed, leading to a high Strouhal number single-wake regime for L/D<2.5. The shorter formation region caused fluid to enter the gap, giving higher drag force coefficients for the downstream cube for small L/D, while the decreased probability of reattachment on the top of the cube led to a small increase in its normal force coefficient.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.533
Threshold uncertainty score0.415

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics of FluidsSame topicFluid Dynamics and Vibration AnalysisFrench-language works237,207