Effects of Lip Thickness on the Flowfield Structures of Supersonic Film Cooling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Schlieren visualizations of flowfield structures of supersonic film cooling in a backward-facing step were conducted in a Mach 2.95 suction wind tunnel with the film coolant tangentially ejected through half-Laval nozzles, all of which were designed in Mach 1.5 but with different lip thicknesses. The film coolants were fed with pressures matching the mainstream, and the flowfield changes of supersonic film cooling under different lip thicknesses between the slot and mainstream were clearly visualized under the conditions of the same step and slot heights. When the step height was kept the same, an increase in lip thickness decreased the angle of the shock wave emanating from the upper tip of the lip, and it decreased the strength of the reattachment shock wave when it was larger than a certain value. When the slot height was kept the same, the increase in lip thickness tended to decrease the angles of the shock waves emanating from the upper and lower tips of the lip and reattachment shock waves. This work provides an in-depth understanding of the flowfields of supersonic film cooling near the backward-facing step and may be used as a reference for the design of supersonic film cooling.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".