MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2096076697 · doi:10.1017/s0022112010000881

The role of diffusion on the interface thickness in a ventilated filling box

2010· article· en· W2096076697 on OpenAlexaff
Nigel B. Kaye, M. R. Flynn, Mark Cook, Yingchun Ji

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluid Mechanics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWind and Air Flow Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBuoyancyPlumeEnclosureMechanicsStratification (seeds)Materials scienceDiffusionNeutral buoyancyMolecular diffusionThermal diffusivityPanacheThermodynamicsGeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examine the role of diffusivity, whether molecular or turbulent, on the steady-state stratification in a ventilated filling box. The buoyancy-driven displacement ventilation model of Linden et al . ( J. Fluid Mech. , vol. 212, 1990, p. 309) predicts the formation of a two-layer stratification when a single plume is introduced into an enclosure with vents at the top and bottom. The model assumes that diffusion plays no role in the development of the ambient buoyancy stratification: diffusion is a slow process and the entrainment of ambient fluid into the plume from the diffuse interface will act to thin the interface resulting in a near discontinuity of density between the upper and lower layers. This prediction has been corroborated by small-scale salt bath experiments; however, full-scale measurements in ventilated rooms and complementary numerical simulations suggest an interface that is not sharp but rather smeared out over a finite thickness. For a given plume buoyancy flux, as the cross-sectional area of the enclosure increases the volume of fluid that must be entrained by the plume to maintain a sharp interface also increases. Therefore the balance between the diffusive thickening of the interface and plume-driven thinning favours a thicker interface. Conversely, the interface thickness decreases with increasing source buoyancy flux, although the dependence is relatively weak. Our analysis presents two models for predicting the interface thickness as a function of the enclosure height, base area, composite vent area, plume buoyancy flux and buoyancy diffusivity. Model results are compared with interface thickness measurements based on previously reported data. Positive qualitative and quantitative agreement is observed.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.170

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations25
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fluid MechanicsSame topicWind and Air Flow StudiesFrench-language works237,207