MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386070615 · doi:10.1063/5.0163366

Effects of surface imperfections on the transitional boundary layer

2023· article· en· W4386070615 on OpenAlexafffund
Ming Teng

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysics of Fluids · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersMitacsConsortium de Recherche et d’innovation en Aérospatiale au QuébecBombardier
KeywordsBoundary layerPhysicsInstabilityMechanicsTurbulenceTransition pointBoundary layer thicknessFlow (mathematics)Boundary (topology)Classical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present work explores the effects of surface imperfections on the transition to turbulence of an incompressible boundary layer over a flat-plate. The analysis focuses on flow mean-dynamics. Visualization of instantaneous coherent structures provides insight into the flow evolution. Geometries considered include forward-facing steps and a step-cavity, representative of roughness commonly seen in manufacturing; the step-sizes and cavity depth are a small fraction of the local boundary layer thickness. A series of well-resolved direct numerical simulations are performed. A controlled Klebanoff-type transition is initiated via a narrow vibrating ribbon placed upstream of the surface imperfection. To distinguish the impact of the forward-facing step and the effect of the cavity, data from a flat-plate and medium-height backward-facing step cases from a previous study [M. Teng and U. Piomelli, “Instability and transition of a boundary layer over a backward-facing step,” Fluids 7, 35 (2022).] is employed as a reference for comparison. The perturbations are found to be locally stabilized, and transition inception is delayed for the medium-height forward-facing step, whereas in all other cases, increased growth-rates promote the onset of transition. The evolution of flow structures in the step-cavity case resembles that of the medium-height backward-facing step: the Kelvin–Helmholtz instability is a predominant mechanism that drives the amplification in the separation region. The phenomenon of stabilization and destabilization is explained from the perspective of energy budget analysis. Although the active instability mechanisms for each surface imperfection are locally influential, the route to turbulence via the Klebanoff regime remains qualitatively the same, independent of stabilizing or destabilizing effect.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysics of FluidsSame topicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent FlowsFrench-language works237,207