MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7114913719 · doi:10.11159/jffhmt.2025.044

Study Of Turbulent Flow Behavior Over Four In-Line and Staggered Cylinders

2025· article· W7114913719 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluid Flow Heat and Mass Transfer · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle Dynamics in Fluid Flows
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlow (mathematics)TurbulenceCylinderWork (physics)Noise (video)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A numerical study was performed to investigate the behavior of an incompressible turbulent flow around four cylinders in a square configuration at a Reynolds number of Re = 3000.The study is performed in order to explain the flow dynamics in tube bundles.Using the Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) approach with the k-ω SST turbulence model, the computations were performed using the open source and free software Code_Saturne.Two configurations are analyzed: inline (α = 0°) and staggered (α = 45°), both with a spacing ratio of P/D = 1.5.The results of the first configuration were validated by comparison with the available experimental and numerical data.The bistability phenomenon was shown based on the different fields of velocity in the in-inline configuration.The analysis of the results of the staggered configurations led to the conclusion that the effect of new configurations on the flow dynamics is well demonstrated by an observation of a jet flow which is distinct from the regular gap flow, characterized by a narrow width and high velocity.Altering the wake shape can cause significant variations in the magnitude and direction of the jet flow, resulting in potential structural vibrations that must be considered in practical engineering applications.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.242 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fluid Flow Heat and Mass TransferSame topicParticle Dynamics in Fluid FlowsFrench-language works237,207