Comparative Analysis of Step Change and Reduced Slew Rate Input on the Boundary Layer Response to Forcing by an Array of Plasma Actuator Vortex Generators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this study, simulations of the laminar boundary layer response to forcing by an array of streamwise oriented plasma actuators are performed. The objective of this study is to evaluate a method to mitigate the non-minimum phase behaviour of the flow that occurs during the step response to input by the actuators. It was recently shown that when the actuators are abruptly started the non-minimum phase response of the wall shear and near-wall disturbance velocity is detected downstream of the actuators. This was shown to be caused by a secondary flow generated between the wall and the front of the tilted vortex structure that is advected downstream [1]. In the present study the step input response is compared to gradually applied inputs. For the step response, the actuators are abruptly activated for 0.2 s followed by a rest period for the flow to return to the undisturbed Blasius condition. For the gradually applied input, the body force of the actuators increases linearly from zero for either 0.005 s, 0.01 s, 0.02 s and 0.04 s to the same maximum value of the step, which simulates a reduced slew rate applied to the physical actuator. The value is held constant and then linearly decreases over a total duration of 0.2 s. It is shown the that inverse response remains for the gradually applied input. However, the peak magnitude is less for the lower ramp rates and the overall response appears more damped.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".