Influence of Time-Varying Freestream Conditions on the Dynamics of Unsteady Boundary-Layer Separation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unsteady flow separation of a turbulent boundary layer under dynamic pressure gradients is investigated using the Large-Eddy Simulation technique. The unsteadiness is introduced by prescribing an oscillating freestream vertical-velocity profile at the top boundary of the domain. Although previous studies, including Ambrogi et al. (Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 945, Aug. 2022, p. A10) and Ambrogi et al. (Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 972, Oct. 2023, p. A36), focused on the kinematics of the flow and the effects of the oscillation frequency on flow separation, the goal of this paper is to analyze the effects of three time-varying freestream-forcing profiles while the oscillation frequency is kept the same for all Cases. Whereas in Case A the freestream-velocity profile changes from suction–blowing to blowing–suction in a complete cycle, Cases B and C are both suction–blowing only and the strength of the adverse pressure gradient is modulated in time. Moreover, the boundary layer in Case B never approaches a zero-pressure gradient condition. A closed separation bubble is formed for all Cases; however, its dimensions change depending on the far-field forcing. The time evolution of turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) reveals an advection mechanism of turbulent structures out of the domain for all Cases. Whereas in Case A and C the high-TKE region, generated in the separated shear layer, is washed out of the domain as a rigid body, in Case B the separation bubble remains present and the advection mechanism of TKE is characterized by a breathing pattern.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".