Characterisation of unsteady separation in a turbulent boundary layer: Reynolds stresses and flow dynamics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The large-eddy simulation technique was used to investigate the dynamics of unsteady flow separation on a flat-plate turbulent boundary layer. The unsteadiness was generated by imposing an oscillating, wall-normal velocity profile at the top of the computational domain, and a range of reduced frequencies ( $k$ ), from a very rapid flutter-like motion to a slow quasi-steady oscillation, was studied. Ambrogi et al. (J. Fluid Mech., vol. 945, 2022, A10) showed that the reduced frequency greatly affects the transient separation process, and at a frequency $k=1$ , the separation region became unstable and was advected periodically out of the domain. In this paper, we discuss the causes of the observed advection process and the effects of the unsteadiness on the second moments. The time evolution of turbulent kinetic energy, for instance, reveals that an advection-like phenomenon is also present at a very low reduced frequency, but its dynamic behaviour is completely different from that of the intermediate frequency ( $k=1$ ). At the intermediate frequency the entire recirculation region is advected downstream, keeping its shape. The advected structure is rotational in nature, and moves at constant speed. In contrast, in the low-frequency case the advected fluid originates at the reattachment point, and the structure is shear-dominated. Particle pathlines reflect the fact that the flow at the low frequency is quasi-steady-state, but show peculiar differences at the intermediate frequency, in which the flow response to the freestream forcing depends on the particle positions in the wall-normal direction.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".