MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2475039138 · doi:10.1017/jfm.2016.404

Reynolds stress distribution and turbulence generated secondary flow in the turbulent three-dimensional wall jet

2016· article· en· W2475039138 on OpenAlexafffund
Lhendup Namgyal, Joseph Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluid Mechanics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTurbulenceReynolds stressReynolds numberVorticityJet (fluid)MechanicsPhysicsParticle image velocimetryTurbulence kinetic energyReynolds stress equation modelClassical mechanicsVortexK-omega turbulence model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The lateral half-width of the turbulent three-dimensional wall jet is typically five to eight times larger than the vertical half-width normal to the wall. Although the reason for this behaviour is not fully understood, it is caused by mean secondary flows that develop in the jet due to the presence of the wall. The origin of the secondary flow has been associated previously with both vorticity reorientation and also gradients in the Reynolds stresses, although this has not been directly quantified as yet. The present investigation focuses on a wall jet formed using a circular contoured nozzle with exit Reynolds number of 250 000. Stereoscopic particle image velocimetry measurements are used herein to measure the three-component velocity, thereby allowing access to the full Reynolds stress tensor that contributes to the secondary flow in a turbulent three-dimensional wall jet. Throughout the jet, the Reynolds normal stress ( $\overline{u^{2}}$ ) makes the largest contribution to the Reynolds stress field whereas Reynolds shear stress ( $\overline{vw}$ ) is found to be negligible when compared with other stresses. In particular, the differences in the Reynolds normal stresses ( $\overline{v^{2}}-\overline{w^{2}}$ ) are found to be significantly larger than $\overline{vw}$ ; these terms are important for the generation of turbulence secondary flow in the wall jet. Above all, the differences in the Reynolds normal stresses are oriented to reinforce the near-wall streamwise vorticity, and thus contribute to the large lateral growth of this flow. The contours of the turbulent kinetic budget indicate that the turbulent energy budget obtained on the jet centreline is different from that obtained off of the jet centreline.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.377
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations26
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fluid MechanicsSame topicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent FlowsFrench-language works237,207