Analysis and Modeling of Pressure Recovery for Separated Reattaching Flows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analyses have been carried out on the mean pressure data for separated reattaching flows downstream of a variety of 2-D bluff-bodies to reveal some similarity features. The step height has been identified as an important parameter in relationships such as the correlation between the reattachment length xr and the initial shear-layer angle. The separation velocity (deduced from separation pressure cps) in the direction perpendicular to the upstream flow increases linearly with the reattachment length at fixed step heights. The streamwise location of the vortex center xv (deduced from mean streamline plots) correlates with the location of minimum pressure xm and each varies linearly with the reattachment length. Pressure force, moment and center of pressure induced by the standing vortex also increase with the reattachment length. An inviscid flow model of a rectilinear stationary vortex above a flat wall leads to a general form of the pressure recovery cp−cp min/cp max−cp min)=8/9x^2x^2+1/x^2+1/32xm<,<xr where 0⩽x^1=Xm/Xr and cp max and cp min are respectively the maximum and minimum pressure coefficients. It is demonstrated that the present analyses allow the pressure distributions downstream of various fore-bodies to be realistically predicted.
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".