MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2984028110 · doi:10.1063/1.5123994

Effects of Reynolds number on vortex structure behind a surface-mounted finite square cylinder with AR = 7

2019· article· en· W2984028110 on OpenAlexaff
You Qin Wang

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics of Fluids · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReynolds numberWakePhysicsVortexMechanicsVortex ringVortex sheddingCylinderClassical mechanicsGeometryHorseshoe vortexFlow visualizationTurbulenceFlow (mathematics)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the numerical solutions of flow around a surface-mounted square cylinder of aspect ratio h/d = 7 at Reynolds numbers of 652 and 13 041. The aim is to investigate the effect of the Reynolds number, between its medium-to-high range, on the flow and vortex structure around such a cylinder. The present simulations have successfully reproduced the primary flow, as well as the three-dimensional large-scale vortex structure in the wake of the finite wall-mounted body. The observation of base vortices, tip vortices, and a horseshoe vortex is consistent with previous experimental studies. A dipole wake is captured at the higher Reynolds number, while a quadrupole wake is captured for the lower, indicating that the Reynolds number strongly influences the wake structure. In the near-wake region, by plotting the isosurface of instantaneous second invariant of the velocity gradient, the full-loop structure is observed for the quadrupole wake, while the half-loop structure is observed for the dipole wake. In the far-wake region, a braided vortex structure formed by asymmetric hairpin vortices is observed at both Reynolds numbers and a new wake topology is proposed for flows with a similar geometry.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.666

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.203
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 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

Citations16
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics of FluidsSame topicFluid Dynamics and Vibration AnalysisFrench-language works237,207