Turbulence Effects of Collision Efficiency and Broadening of Droplet Size Distribution in Cumulus Clouds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims to investigate and quantify the turbulence effect on droplet collision efficiency and explore the broadening mechanism of the droplet size distribution (DSD) in cumulus clouds. The sophisticated model employed in this study individually traces droplet motions affected by gravity, droplet disturbance flows, and turbulence in a Lagrangian frame. Direct numerical simulation (DNS) techniques are implemented to resolve the small-scale turbulence. Collision statistics for cloud droplets of radii between 5 and 25 μm at five different turbulence dissipation rates (20–500 cm2 s−3) are computed and compared with pure-gravity cases. The results show that the turbulence enhancement of collision efficiency highly depends on the r ratio (defined as the radius ratio of collected and collector droplets r/ R) but is less sensitive to the size of the collector droplet investigated in this study. Particularly, the enhancement is strongest among comparable-sized collisions, indicating that turbulence can significantly broaden the narrow DSD resulting from condensational growth. Finally, DNS experiments of droplet growth by collision–coalescence in turbulence are performed for the first time in the literature to further illustrate this hypothesis and to monitor the appearance of drizzle in the early rain-formation stage. By comparing the resulting DSDs at different turbulence intensities, it is found that broadening is most pronounced when turbulence is strongest and similar-sized collisions account for 21%–24% of total collisions in turbulent cases compared with only 9% in the gravitational case.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 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".