MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2965482020 · doi:10.11159/htff19.172

The Formulation of the RANS Equations for Hypersonic Turbulent Flows

2019· article· en· W2965482020 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Haoyuan Zhang, T.J. Craft, Hector Iacovides

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the World Congress on Mechanical, Chemical, and Material Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equationsTurbulenceAerospace engineeringHypersonic speedComputer scienceComputational fluid dynamicsMechanicsEnvironmental scienceApplied mathematicsAeronauticsPhysicsMathematicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate prediction of hypersonic turbulent flows is essential to the design of high-speed aerospace vehicles. Such flows are mainly predicted using the Reynolds-Averaged-Navier-Stokes (RANS) approach in general and in particular turbulence models using the effective viscosity approximation. Several terms involving the turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) appear explicitly in the RANS equations through the modelling of the Reynolds stresses and mean total energy and the molecular and turbulent diffusion terms. Some of these terms are often ignored in low, or even supersonic, speed simulations with zero-equation models, as well as some one-or twoequation models. The omission of these terms may not be suitable under hypersonic conditions, but there are nevertheless codes and software packages that still make such approximations, even for very high-speed turbulent flow simulations. To clarify the impact of ignoring the TKE terms in the RANS equations, two linear two-equation models and one nonlinear two-equation model are applied to the computation of two hypersonic benchmark cases, a 2D zero-pressure gradient flat plate case and an axisymmetric shock wave boundary layer interaction (SWBLI) case. The predicted surface friction coefficients and velocity profiles with different combinations of TKE terms showed little differences in the zero-pressure gradient case. However, in the SWBLI case, comparisons show that the flow separation would be delayed or accelerated with different combinations of TKE compared to the one with all the TKE terms included. Therefore, it is highly recommended to include all the TKE terms in the mean flow equations when dealing with simulations of hypersonic turbulent flows, especially for flows with shock wave boundary layer interactions. As a further consequence, since the TKE terms may not be obtained explicitly in zero-equation, or some one-equation, models, it is debatable whether these models are suitable for simulations of hypersonic turbulent flows with SWBLIs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.619
Threshold uncertainty score0.336

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the World Congress on Mechanical, Chemical, and Material EngineeringSame topicComputational Fluid Dynamics and AerodynamicsFrench-language works237,207