Study of Natural Convection in Volumetrically Heated Enclosures for Different Aspect Ratios and Prandtl Numbers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Natural convection in volumetrically heated rectangular enclosures is studied in this work. The walls of the enclosure are maintained isothermal. For the rectangular enclosure, two-dimensional conservation equations are solved using SIMPLE algorithm. The code is benchmarked with the results for a lid-driven cavity and a differentially heated cavity. Parametric studies are conducted to examine the effects of orientation of the cavity, fluid properties (Pr number), and aspect ratio for Rayleigh numbers up to 106. For a horizontal cavity, the flow becomes periodically oscillating at Ra = 5×104 and chaotic at Ra = 8×105. With a slight increase in the inclination angle, the oscillations die down and for inclination angles greater than 15°, the flow attain a steady state over a range of Ra. The aspect ratio AR, defined as the ratio of the height to the width of the cavity, is varied from 0.25 to 0.75 (AR < 1: wide cavities) and from 2.0 to 6.0 (AR > 1: long cavities). The values of critical Ra at which the convection sets in the cavity are presented for the range of AR studied here. The corresponding flow regimes are also identified.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".