MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800571689

Effect of Boundary Layer Thickness and Passive Vortex Generators on the Wake of a Blunt Trailing Edge Profiled Body

2017· dissertation· en· W2800571689 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Wenyi Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace (University of Toronto) · 2017
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaConnaught FundUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsWakeTrailing edgeBoundary layerBluntVortex sheddingEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionVortexMaterials scienceMechanicsPhysicsEngineeringTurbulenceTelecommunicationsReynolds number
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis studies the effect of turbulent boundary layer thickness on the wake dynamics of a blunt trailing edge profiled body, and investigates a flow control technique by applying passive vortex generators with different size and spacing. The boundary layer thickness was varied by changing the model chord to thickness ratio from 30 to 150 and by changing the Reynolds number from 10,000 to 35,000. Consequently, the displacement thickness in this study ranges from 0.077d to 0.319d, which results in a decrease of Strouhal number from 0.202 to 0.168, and increase in formation length from 0.863d to 1.048d, and an increase in the average wavelength of secondary instability from 2.12d to 3.33d. The effectiveness of the passive flow control was found to have little dependence on Reynolds number, and the most back pressure recovery of 30% and formation length elongation of 80% were achieved with the smallest passive vortex generators spaced at 2.4d, which is close to the wavelength of the secondary instability.

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)0.001
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: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.000
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.221 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpace (University of Toronto)Same topicFluid Dynamics and Vibration AnalysisFrench-language works237,207