MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792281294 · doi:10.1017/jfm.2017.902

Mechanisms in the hypersonic laminar near wake of a blunt body

2018· article· en· W2792281294 on OpenAlexaff
W. Schuyler Hinman, Craig T. Johansen

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluid Mechanics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWakeLaminar flowMechanicsInviscid flowPhysicsHypersonic speedMach numberStagnation pointReynolds numberClassical mechanicsHeat transferTurbulence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A new theoretical framework, based on the analysis of Navier–Stokes solutions for the hypersonic laminar near wake of two-dimensional and axisymmetric blunt bodies, is presented. A semi-empirical relationship is derived between the free-stream Mach and Reynolds numbers and a characteristic wake Reynolds number. A control volume analysis was performed to assess the validity of some common assumptions used in the literature. Analysis of the momentum and vorticity equations is used to assess the dominant mechanisms of momentum transfer along and across the dividing streamline and centreline which enclose the near wake. An observed stagnation pressure gain along the dividing streamline is explained using the entropy transport equation, demonstrating an unbalance between entropy generation due to viscous dissipation and entropy diffusion. The rear-stagnation point flow is analysed using an analogy to a reversed flow jet which allows for the centreline Mach number to be solved. A new viscous–inviscid interaction theory is presented for the reattachment shock formation process for both planar and axisymmetric wakes. Finally, all of the sub-mechanisms are combined into an overall wake mechanism. The resulting equations constitute the first overall theoretical framework of the laminar near-wake mechanism including separation, reattachment, rear-stagnation point flow and dividing streamline stagnation pressure gain for both planar and axisymmetric near wakes. Scaling arguments are presented throughout the work for each of the key sub-mechanisms. Recommendations are made for how experimental and numerical results for the near wake should be presented. The equations and recommendations presented here are then used to perform a detailed disambiguation of laminar capsule studies in the literature.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.200
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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