Taylor vortices in yield stress fluids with static wall layers on the outer cylinder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A linear stability analysis of circular Couette flow of a Bingham fluid subjected to axisymmetric perturbations was presented by Peng & Zhu (J. Fluid Mech., vol. 512, 2004, pp. 21–45) and Landry et al. (J. Fluid Mech., vol. 560, 2006, pp. 321–353). Here, we consider the stability of this flow with respect to a finite amplitude perturbation. We focus particularly on the case where the basic flow has an unyielded fluid layer on outer cylinder. A weakly nonlinear stability analysis is developed for a wide gap and a narrow gap. A third-order Ginzburg–Landau equation is derived, and the influence of the different nonlinearities on bifurcation features is investigated in detail. The results indicate that: (i) the nonlinear inertial terms act in favour of pitchfork supercritical bifurcation and the nonlinear yield stress terms promote a subcritical bifurcation; (ii) for a range of Bingham numbers $B$ , the extent of which depends on the radius ratio and outer Reynolds number, the nonlinear yield stress terms are dominant and the primary bifurcation is subcritical. The amplitude analysis indicates that in the supercritical bifurcation regime, near the threshold, when the nonlinear inertial terms are dominant, the amplitude decreases slightly with increasing $B$ . Once the nonlinear yield stress terms start to become significant, the equilibrium amplitude increases substantially with increasing $B$ . Similar trends are observed for Taylor vortex strength. Finally, the erosion of the static layer is analysed. It is shown that the nonlinear yield stress terms play a significant role.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".