MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2974236502 · doi:10.1115/1.4044827

Prediction of Turbulent Flow Over a Flat Plate With a Step Change From a Smooth to a Rough Surface Using a Near-Wall RANS Model

2019· article· en· W2974236502 on OpenAlexaff
Minghan Chu, Donald J. Bergstrom

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluids Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equationsTurbulence kinetic energyTurbulenceBoundary layerMechanicsReynolds stressReynolds numberSurface roughnessMean flowSurface finishFlow (mathematics)Boundary layer thicknessMaterials scienceGeometryPhysicsMathematicsThermodynamicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The present paper reports a numerical study of fully developed turbulent flow over a flat plate with a step change from a smooth to a rough surface. The Reynolds number based on momentum thickness for the smooth flow was Reθ=5950. The focus of the study was to investigate the capability of the Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) equations to predict the internal boundary layer (IBL) created by the flow configuration. The numerical solution used a two-layer k−ε model to implement the effects of surface roughness on the turbulence and mean flow fields via the use of a hydrodynamic roughness length y0. The prediction for the mean velocity field revealed a development zone immediately downstream of the step in which the mean velocity profile included a lower region affected by the surface roughness below and an upper region with the characteristics of the smooth-wall boundary layer above. In this zone, both the turbulence kinetic energy and Reynolds shear stress profiles were characterized by a significant reduction in magnitude in the outer region of the flow that is unaffected by the rough surface. The turbulence kinetic energy profile was used to estimate the thickness of the IBL, and the resulting growth rate closely matched the experimental results. As such, the IBL is a promising test case for assessing the ability of RANS models to predict the discrete roughness configurations often encountered in industrial and environmental applications.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.103
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.177 · 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.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fluids EngineeringSame topicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent FlowsFrench-language works237,207