Numerical simulation of a spatially developing accelerating boundary layer over roughness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The direct numerical simulation of an accelerating boundary layer over a rough wall has been carried out to investigate the coupling between the effects of roughness and strong free-stream acceleration. While the favourable pressure gradient is sufficient to achieve quasi-laminarization on a smooth wall, the flow reversion is prevented on a rough wall, and a higher friction coefficient, a faster increase of turbulence intensity compared to the free-stream velocity and more isotropic turbulence near the wall are observed. The logarithmic region of the mean-velocity profile presents an initial decrease in slope as in the smooth case, but soon recovers, as the fully rough regime is reached and a new overlap region is established. A strong coupling between the roughness and acceleration effects develops as roughness leads to more responsive turbulence and prevents the strong acceleration from stabilizing the turbulence, and the acceleration intensifies the velocity scale of the wake field (i.e. the near-wall spatial heterogeneity of the time-averaged velocity distribution). The combined effect is a ‘rougher’ surface as the flow accelerates. In addition, the link between the local values of the free stream and the near-wall velocity depends on the flow history; this explains the different flow responses observed in previous studies, in terms of friction coefficient, turbulent kinetic energy and Reynolds-stress anisotropy. This study elucidates the near-wall flow dynamics, which may be used to explain other non-canonical flows over rough walls.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".