MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2316732000 · doi:10.1017/jfm.2011.104

On unsteady boundary-layer separation in supersonic flow. Part 1. Upstream moving separation point

2011· article· en· W2316732000 on OpenAlexaff
Anatoly I. Ruban, D. ARAKI, Ramesh Yapalparvi, Jitesh S. B. Gajjar

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluid Mechanics · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
KeywordsPhysicsBoundary layerLaminar flowMechanicsFlow separationSupersonic speedShock (circulatory)Reynolds numberShock waveFlow (mathematics)Classical mechanicsGeometryMathematicsTurbulence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study is concerned with the boundary-layer separation from a rigid body surface in unsteady two-dimensional laminar supersonic flow. The separation is assumed to be provoked by a shock wave impinging upon the boundary layer at a point that moves with speed V sh along the body surface. The strength of the shock and its speed V sh are allowed to vary with time t , but not too fast, namely, we assume that the characteristic time scale t ≪ Re −1/2 / V w 2 . Here Re denotes the Reynolds number, and V w = − V sh is wall velocity referred to the gas velocity V ∞ in the free stream. We show that under this assumption the flow in the region of interaction between the shock and boundary layer may be treated as quasi-steady if it is considered in the coordinate frame moving with the shock. We start with the flow regime when V w = O ( Re −1/8 ). In this case, the interaction between the shock and boundary layer is described by classical triple-deck theory. The main modification to the usual triple-deck formulation is that in the moving frame the body surface is no longer stationary; it moves with the speed V w = − V sh . The corresponding solutions of the triple-deck equations have been constructed numerically. For this purpose, we use a numerical technique based on finite differencing along the streamwise direction and Chebyshev collocation in the direction normal to the body surface. In the second part of the paper, we assume that 1 ≫ V w ≫ O ( Re −1/8 ), and concentrate our attention on the self-induced separation of the boundary layer. Assuming, as before, that the Reynolds number, Re , is large, the method of matched asymptotic expansions is used to construct the corresponding solutions of the Navier–Stokes equations in a vicinity of the separation point.

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 score0.177
Threshold uncertainty score0.756

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations15
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fluid MechanicsSame topicComputational Fluid Dynamics and AerodynamicsFrench-language works237,207