Entry Length Requirements for Two- and Three-Dimensional Laminar Couette–Poiseuille Flows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we examine the development length requirements for laminar Couette–Poiseuille flows in a two-dimensional (2D) channel as well as in the three-dimensional (3D) case of flow through a square duct, using a combination of numerical and experimental approaches. The parameter space investigated covers wall to bulk velocity ratios, r, spanning from 0 (purely pressure-driven flow) to 2 (purely wall driven-flow; 4 in the case of a square duct) and a wide range of Reynolds numbers (Re). The results indicate an increase in the development length (L) with r. Consistent with the findings of Durst et al. (2005, “The Development Lengths of Laminar Pipe and Channel Flows,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 127(6), pp. 1154–1160), L was observed to be of the order of the channel height in the limit as Re→0, irrespective of the condition at the inlet. This, however, changes at high Reynolds numbers, with L increasing linearly with Re. In all the cases considered, a uniform velocity profile at the inlet was found to result in longer entry lengths than in a flow developing from a parabolic inlet profile. We show that this inlet effect becomes less important as the limit of purely wall-driven flow is approached. Finally, we develop correlations for predicting L in these flows and, for the first time, also present laser Doppler velocimetry (LDV) measurements of the developing as well as fully-developed velocity profiles, and observe good agreement between experiment, analytical solution, and numerical simulation results in the 3D case.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".