MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991243348 · doi:10.1115/1.2073288

Skin Friction Correlation for Smooth and Rough Wall Turbulent Boundary Layers

2005· article· en· W1991243348 on OpenAlexafffund
Donald J. Bergstrom, O. G. Akinlade, Mark F. Tachie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluids Engineering · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Saskatchewan
KeywordsFreestreamReynolds numberParasitic dragBoundary layerTurbulenceBoundary layer thicknessMechanicsSurface finishMaterials scienceGeometrySurface roughnessDisplacement (psychology)Flow (mathematics)Pressure gradientMathematicsPhysicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we propose a novel skin friction correlation for a zero pressure gradient turbulent boundary layer over surfaces with different roughness characteristics. The experimental data sets were obtained on a hydraulically smooth and ten different rough surfaces created from sand paper, perforated sheet, and woven wire mesh. The physical size and geometry of the roughness elements and freestream velocity were chosen to encompass both transitionally rough and fully rough flow regimes. The flow Reynolds number based on momentum thickness ranged from 3730 to 13,550. We propose a correlation that relates the skin friction, Cf, to the ratio of the displacement and boundary layer thicknesses, δ*∕δ, which is valid for both smooth and rough wall flows. The results indicate that the ratio Cf1∕2∕(δ*∕δ) is approximately constant, irrespective of the Reynolds number and surface condition.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 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

Citations32
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fluids EngineeringSame topicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent FlowsFrench-language works237,207