Influence of Upstream Conditions and Gravity on Highly Inertial Thin-Film Flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Steady two-dimensional thin-film flow of a Newtonian fluid is examined in this theoretical study. The influence of exit conditions and gravity is examined in detail. The considered flow is of moderately high inertia. The flow is dictated by the thin-film equations of boundary layer type, which are solved by expanding the flow field in orthonormal modes in the transverse direction and using Galerkin projection method, combined with integration along the flow direction. Three types of exit conditions are investigated, namely, parabolic, semiparabolic, and uniform flow. It is found that the type of exit conditions has a significant effect on the development of the free surface and flow field near the exit. While for the parabolic velocity profile at the exit, the free surface exhibits a local depression, for semiparabolic and uniform velocity profiles, the height of the film increases monotonically with streamwise position. In order to examine the influence of gravity, the flow is studied down a vertical wall as well as over a horizontal wall. The role of gravity is different for the two types of wall orientation. It is found that for the horizontal wall, a hydraulic-jump-like structure is formed and the flow further downstream exhibits a shock. The influence of exit conditions on shock formation is examined in detail.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".