Numerical solution of unsteady boundary-layer separation in supersonic flow: upstream moving wall
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This paper is an extension of work on separation from a downstream moving wall by Ruban et al. (J. Fluid. Mech., vol. 678, 2011, pp. 124–155) and is in particular concerned with the boundary-layer separation in unsteady two-dimensional laminar supersonic flow. In a frame attached to the wall, the separation is assumed to be provoked by a shock wave impinging upon the boundary layer at a point that moves downstream with a non-dimensional speed which is assumed to be of order ${\mathit{Re}}^{\ensuremath{-} 1/ 8} $ where $\mathit{Re}$ is the Reynolds number. In the coordinate system of the shock however, the wall moves upstream. The strength of the shock and its speed are allowed to vary with time on a characteristic time scale that is large compared to ${\mathit{Re}}^{\ensuremath{-} 1/ 4} $ . The ‘triple-deck’ model is used to describe the interaction process. The governing equations of the interaction problem can be derived from the Navier–Stokes equations in the limit $\mathit{Re}\ensuremath{\rightarrow} \infty $ . The numerical solutions are obtained using a combination of finite differences along the streamwise direction and Chebyshev collocation along the normal direction in conjunction with Newton linearization. In the present study with the wall moving upstream, the evidence is inconclusive regarding the so-called ‘Moore–Rott–Sears’ criterion being satisfied. Instead it is observed that the pressure rise from its initial value is very slow and that a recirculation region forms, the upstream part of which is wedge-shaped, as also observed in turbulent marginal separation for large values of angle of attack.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".