Dynamic characteristics of supersonic turbulent free jets from four types of circular nozzles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The effects of nozzle structures and working pressure on the dynamic characteristics of supersonic turbulent free jets have been investigated numerically. Four types of nozzles (namely Laval, pipe, contraction I, and contraction II, respectively) and four pressure conditions (namely K = 0.8, 1, 1.5, and 2, respectively) were considered. A Standard k-ε model was utilized for the calculation of the supersonic turbulent free jets. Validation of the model was performed on the Laval jet by comparing it with the experiment and large-eddy simulation (LES). A perfect agreement was achieved in terms of the centerline and radial axial velocity profiles. The jets issuing from the Laval and the pipe had a longer potential core and a larger centerline axial velocity with the same outlet momentum. The length of the potential core was proportional to the working pressure, but variations of the centerline axial velocity decay rate were inverse for all nozzles. The effects of nozzle structures and work pressure on the spreading rates of the jets were insignificant. No obvious change trend could be observed on the kinematic and geometric virtual origins. The study can provide references for the nozzle and working pressure selection in practical application.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".