Evolution of the scalar dissipation rate downstream of a concentrated line source in turbulent channel flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The dissipation rate, $\varepsilon _{\theta }$ , of a passive scalar (temperature in air) emitted from a concentrated source into a fully developed high-aspect-ratio turbulent channel flow is studied. The goal of the present work is to investigate the return to isotropy of the scalar field when the scalar is injected in a highly anisotropic manner into an inhomogeneous turbulent flow at small scales. Both experiments and direct numerical simulations (DNS) were used to study the downstream evolution of $\varepsilon _{\theta }$ for scalar fields generated by line sources located at the channel centreline $(y_s/h = 1.0)$ and near the wall $(y_s/h = 0.17)$ . The temperature fluctuations and temperature derivatives were measured by means of a pair of parallel cold-wire thermometers in a flow at $Re_{\tau } = 520$ . The DNS were performed at $Re_{\tau } = 190$ using a spectral method to solve the continuity and Navier–Stokes equations, and a flux integral method (Germaine, Mydlarski & Cortelezzi,J. Comput. Phys., vol. 174, 2001, pp. 614–648) for the advection–diffusion equation. The statistics of the scalar field computed from both experimental and numerical data were found to be in good agreement, with certain discrepancies that were attributable to the difference in the Reynolds numbers of the two flows. A return to isotropy of the small scales was never perfectly observed in any region of the channel for the downstream distances studied herein. However, a continuous decay of the small-scale anisotropy was observed for the scalar field generated by the centreline line source in both the experiments and DNS. The scalar mixing was found to be more rapid in the near-wall region, where the experimental results exhibited low levels of small-scale anisotropy. However, the DNS, which were performed at lower $Re_{\tau }$ , showed that persistent anisotropy can also exist near the wall, independently of the downstream location. The role of the mean velocity gradient in the production of $\varepsilon _{\theta }$ (and therefore anisotropy) in the near-wall region was highlighted.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".