Experimental study of a time‐varying turbulent cross‐flow near a two‐dimensional rough wall with narrow apertures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Turbulent flow over a rough wall with suction or blowing is an industrially important fluid mechanics problem. In the screening of wood pulp fibre suspensions, for example, turbulent flow is induced by a rotor adjacent to a slotted screen cylinder. To better understand the complex hydrodynamics in the critical region between the pulp screen rotor and the slotted screen wall, the stream‐wise velocity and aperture velocities were measured using particle image velocimetry. The vortex generated above the aperture is shown to be strongly dependent on aperture velocity and wall roughness. The vortex diminishes in size at higher aperture velocities and increased exit layer height. The experiments also show that the reversal flow in the slot decreases with lower rotor speeds and increased mean slot velocities. This observation challenges the existing models of apertures being cleared by flow reversal driven by a Bernoulli‐type suction pulse. In its place, this paper identifies elements of a more sophisticated flow model that considers the depletion of the zone below the rotor as well as the flow in the wake of the foil.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".