Comparison of Pressure-based and Skin Friction-based Methods for theDetermination of Flow Separation of a Circular Cylinder with RoundnessImperfection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: A delayed detached eddy simulation in Open FOAM was performed to study flow separation of a circular cylinder with roundness imperfection up to 4% of its diameter at Reynolds numbers of 100, 3900, and 104 in normal flow. Methods: The flow was considered to be Newtonian and incompressible. The separation position was determined independently based on surface pressure distribution and skin friction. Results: Results show that the patterns of these distributions depend on both Reynolds number and roundness imperfection level, and flow separation in an imperfectly round cylinder may be induced by either an adverse pressure gradient or a Gentle Bend (GB) introduced by the roughness. For the separation point determined by the pressure-based method, its accuracy can be affected by the characteristic of pressure distribution near the separation point at low Reynolds numbers, and, thus, its physical validity needs to be verified by flow visualization at high Reynolds numbers. Conclusion: The skin friction-based method can accurately predict separation point for both perfectly and imperfectly round cylinders without additional information. When the roundness imperfection ratio reaches 2% and the Reynolds number reaches 3900, both approaches indicate that the flow separation point converges to the location of GB on the cylinder surface and the two sets of predicted separation points agree well.
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 | 0.000 | 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".