Bridging the condensation–collision size gap: a direct numerical simulation of continuous droplet growth in turbulent clouds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. In most previous direct numerical simulation (DNS) studies on droplet growth in turbulence, condensational growth and collisional growth were treated separately. Studies in recent decades have postulated that small-scale turbulence may accelerate droplet collisions when droplets are still small when condensational growth is effective. This implies that both processes should be considered simultaneously to unveil the full history of droplet growth and rain formation. This paper introduces the first direct numerical simulation approach to explicitly study the continuous droplet growth by condensation and collisions inside an adiabatic ascending cloud parcel. Results from the condensation-only, collision-only, and condensation–collision experiments are compared to examine the contribution to the broadening of droplet size distribution (DSD) by the individual process and by the combined processes. Simulations of different turbulent intensities are conducted to investigate the impact of turbulence on each process and on the condensation-induced collisions. The results show that the condensational process promotes the collisions in a turbulent environment and reduces the collisions when in still air, indicating a positive impact of condensation on turbulent collisions. This work suggests the necessity of including both processes simultaneously when studying droplet–turbulence interaction to quantify the turbulence effect on the evolution of cloud droplet spectrum and rain formation.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".