Synthetic Jet Performance for Different Axisymmetric Cavities Analyzed with Three-Dimensional Lattice-Boltzmann Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Asynthetic jet actuator is a zero-net mass-flux device that imparts momentum and is useful for active flow control [1,2]. To study the influence of cavity shape on synthetic jet performance, this Note presents model results to validate previous experimental investigations that the synthetic jet is sensitive to cavity shape. Three axisymmetric synthetic jets with different cavity shapes (cylindrical, conical, and contraction), as shown in Figs. 1 and 2, are examined for jet performance, keeping other parameters constant, such as cavity volume, nozzle length, and nozzle diameter [3–5]. Using a three-dimensional lattice-Boltzmann method with the Bhatnagar–Gross–Krook collision models [6–8], the comparison of the three shaped cavities is conducted using the same sinusoidal velocity inlet boundary condition. Time-dependent synthetic jet simulations are carried out, the velocity and momentum profiles are illustrated and discussed, and the numerical simulations are validated against previous experimental data. The computed results confirm that synthetic jet performance depend on cavity shape. The jet flow rate and momentum, relevant in flow control applications, decrease sequentially from the cylindrical to the conical to the contraction cavity.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".