Quantification of Reynolds-averaged-Navier–Stokes model-form uncertainty in transitional boundary layer and airfoil flows
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well known that the Boussinesq turbulent-viscosity hypothesis can introduce uncertainty in predictions for complex flow features such as separation, reattachment, and laminar-turbulent transition. This study adopts a recent physics-based uncertainty quantification (UQ) approach to address such model-form uncertainty in Reynolds-averaged Naiver–Stokes (RANS) simulations. Thus far, almost all UQ studies have focused on quantifying the model-form uncertainty in turbulent flow scenarios. The focus of the study is to advance our understanding of the performance of the UQ approach on two different transitional flow scenarios: a flat plate and a SD7003 airfoil, to close this gap. For the T3A (flat-plate) flow, most of the model-form uncertainty is concentrated in the laminar-turbulent transition region. For the SD7003 airfoil flow, the eigenvalue perturbations reveal a decrease as well as an increase in the length of the separation bubble. As a consequence, the uncertainty bounds successfully encompass the reattachment point. Likewise, the region of reverse flow that appears in the separation bubble is either suppressed or bolstered by the eigenvalue perturbations. This is the first successful RANS UQ study for transitional flows.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it