MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Sound emission in a quasi-steady transonic turbulent flow past a circular cylinder

2025· article· en· W4408292319 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review Fluids · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAlliance de recherche numérique du CanadaVetenskapsrådet
KeywordsTransonicTurbulenceAcousticsMechanicsCylinderPhysicsSound (geography)Subsonic and transonic wind tunnelFlow (mathematics)AerodynamicsMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the noise generation mechanism of a circular cylinder in a quasi-steady transonic condition using direct noise computation. Unlike a subsonic circular cylinder, where noise is generated by alternate vortex shedding, it is found that in a quasi-steady condition, where vortex shedding is suppressed, the cylinder noise is primarily generated by the oscillation of separated shear layers, also known as shear layer instability. The flow contains complex features such as weak oblique shocks, expansion fans, fluctuating separated shear layers, suppressed vortex shedding, <a:math xmlns:a="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <a:mi>λ</a:mi> </a:math> shocks, and quasi-steady bow shocks. Near-wake pressure fluctuations are found to be more strongly correlated with far-field pressure fluctuations, whereas wall pressure fluctuations are uncorrelated with far-field pressure fluctuations, suggesting that the sound sources are located in the near wake rather than on the cylinder surface. In the downstream far field, a dominant tone at the frequency of the fluctuating separated shear layers is observed. In the near-field region just behind the <b:math xmlns:b="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <b:mi>λ</b:mi> </b:math> shocks, as the distance from the fluctuating separated shear layer increases, the acoustic pressure fluctuation replaces the hydrodynamic pressure fluctuation as the dominant component. In the region of expansion fans, the pressure fluctuation is mainly low-frequency acoustic pressure fluctuation. In the region of fluctuating separated shear layers, while the pressure fluctuation includes similar amounts of acoustic and hydrodynamic components at most frequencies, it predominantly consists of acoustic component at the frequency of the fluctuating separated shear layers. Overall, the dominant acoustic waves are primarily generated by the oscillation of the separated shear layers. Among the various-scale vortical structures, the one induced by the oscillation of the separated shear layers is most closely associated with both sound and pseudo-sound signatures.

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.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.744
Threshold uncertainty score0.710

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.273
Teacher spread0.263 · 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