Scaling of the Wall Pressure Field Around Surface-Mounted Pyramids and Other Bluff Bodies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The turbulent flow around square-based, surface-mounted pyramids, of height h, in thin and thick boundary layers was experimentally investigated. The influence of apex angle ζ and angle of attack α was ascertained from mean surface flow patterns and ground plane pressure measurements taken at a Reynolds number of 3.3×104 based on h. For both boundary layer flows, it was found that the normalized ground plane pressure distributions in the wakes of all the pyramids for all angles of attack may be scaled using an attachment length (Xa′) measured from the upstream origin of the separated shear layer to the near-wake attachment point on the ground plane. It was also shown that this scaling is applicable to data reported in the literature for other bluff body shapes, namely, cubes, cones, and hemispheres. The ground plane pressure coefficient distributions in the upstream separated flow region, for all the shapes and angles of attack examined, were found to collapse onto two curves by scaling their streamwise location using a length scale (Xu), which is a function of the frontal projected width of the body (w′) and the height of the body. These two curves were for cases where δ∕h<1 (“thin” boundary layer) or δ∕h≥1 (“thick” boundary layer), where δ is the oncoming boundary layer thickness. Further work is required to provide a more detailed statement on the influence of boundary layer thickness (or state) on the upstream pressure field scaling.
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) | 0.001 | 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".