Shear Layer Development, Separation, and Stability Over a Low-Reynolds Number Airfoil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The shear layer development for a NACA 0025 airfoil at a low Reynolds number was investigated experimentally and numerically using large eddy simulation (LES). Two angles of attack (AOAs) were considered: 5 deg and 12 deg. Experiments and numerics confirm that two flow regimes are present. The first regime, present for an angle-of-attack of 5 deg, exhibits boundary layer reattachment with formation of a laminar separation bubble. The second regime consists of boundary layer separation without reattachment. Linear stability analysis (LSA) of mean velocity profiles is shown to provide adequate agreement between measured and computed growth rates. The stability equations exhibit significant sensitivity to variations in the base flow. This highlights that caution must be applied when experimental or computational uncertainties are present, particularly when performing comparisons. LSA suggests that the first regime is characterized by high frequency instabilities with low spatial growth, whereas the second regime experiences low frequency instabilities with more rapid growth. Spectral analysis confirms the dominance of a central frequency in the laminar separation region of the shear layer, and the importance of nonlinear interactions with harmonics in the transition process.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".