MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084573563 · doi:10.1115/fedsm2006-98269

Quantitative Investigation of Coherent Structures in a Free Jet Using PIV and POD

2006· article· en· W2084573563 on OpenAlexaff
A.-M. Shinneeb, Ram Balachandar, J. D. Bugg

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerodynamics and Acoustics in Jet Flows
Canadian institutionsUniversity of WindsorUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVortexJet (fluid)Particle image velocimetryMechanicsReynolds numberEddyPhysicsVortex ringCirculation (fluid dynamics)TurbulenceNozzleTurbulence kinetic energyRotation (mathematics)Kinetic energyClassical mechanicsGeometryMathematicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates an isothermal free water jet discharging horizontally from a circular nozzle (9 mm) into a stationary body of water. The jet exit velocity was 2.5 m/s and the exit Reynolds number was 22,500. Particle image velocimetry (PIV) measurements were made at the jet exit and in the far field of the jet. The large-scale structures in the far field were investigated by performing a proper orthogonal decomposition (POD) analysis on the fluctuating velocity fields. The number of modes used for the POD reconstruction of the velocity fields was selected to recover 40% of the turbulent kinetic energy. A vortex identification algorithm was then employed to quantify the size, circulation, and direction of rotation of the exposed vortices. Then, the identified vortex characteristics were analysed by performing a statistical study of their distributions. The results clearly reveal that the jet contains a substantial number of eddies of both rotation directions. Moreover, the number of vortices decreases in the axial direction while their size increases. The mean circulation magnitude is preserved in the axial direction. The results indicate that larger vortices have a higher value of circulation while smaller values of circulation are associated with smaller eddies.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAerodynamics and Acoustics in Jet FlowsFrench-language works237,207