Turbulent Flow Through a Staggered Tube Bank
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reynolds stress model simulations of turbulent flow through a staggered tube bank were carried out using the computational fluid dynamics code FLUENT. Both wall functions and near-wall treatment approaches were used. In addition, simulations using a near-wall turbulence model, the Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model, were also carried out for comparison. Simulations were performed at a Reynolds number of 10 6 with longitudinal pitch-to-diameter ratio of 1.414 and transverse pitch-to-diameter ratio of 2.0. The primary aim was to numerically investigate the crossflow in a tube bank at a very high Reynolds number using a two-dimensional model. Reynolds stress model with both standard wall function approach and nonequilibrium wall function approach predicted the position of boundary layer separation well. The heat transfer prediction was found to be in reasonable agreement with the experimental data and the empirical correlation. Flow visualization provided a clear picture of the vortex shedding which can help us better understand the flow character. The existence of two Strouhal numbers was consistent with some experimental studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".