Wake Flow Study on Two Tandem Circular Cylinders: Spacing Ratio and Reynolds Number Effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article presents an exploration of the wake flow interaction between two vibrating tandem circular cylinders placed in a turbulent crossflow with one degree of freedom, in a pendulumlike movement. Four main experiments were performed to obtain the results of wake flow velocity, lateral acceleration and displacement, and flow structure through the PIV technique. Two distincts wind tunnels were employed in this study, maintaining similar flow characteristics in each experiment. Four spacing ratios of 3.5, 4.5, 7.5, and 10 were considered in this study, combined with Reynolds numbers ranging from 9.5 to 24 × 103. The results show that the mean time wake velocity behind the downstream cylinder is not influenced by the spacing ratio, but follows the increase in the free flow velocity for the same spacing ratio. The lateral acceleration and lateral displacement measured on the downstream cylinder are the highest for the lowest spacing ratio, reducing with the increase in the spacing ratio. For the highest spacing ratio, the setup behaves as two single cylinders. Flow visualization performed in this study on the oscillatory cylinders showed different characteristics from the fixed cylinders results. A summary of the results is presented in this article.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".