Jet mixing optimization using a bio-inspired evolution of hardware and control
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Jet mixing is a critical factor in various engineering applications, influencing pollutant dispersion, chemical processes, medical treatments, and combustion enhancement. Hitherto, jet mixing has typically been optimized by either passive or active control techniques. In this experimental study, we combine simultaneous optimization of active control with 12 inward-pointing minijets and a tuneable nozzle exit shape commanded by 12 stepper motors. Jet mixing is monitored at the end of the potential core with an array of 7 × 7 Pitot tubes. This high-dimensional actuation space is conquered with Particle Swarm Optimization through Targeted, Position-Mutated Elitism. Our results underscore the significant impact of combining control techniques, illustrating the complex interactions of both passive and active control on jet flow dynamics. The mixing area of the combined control optimization is 4.5 times larger than the area of the unforced state. This mixing increase significantly outperforms the effect of shape optimization of the nozzle alone. Our study points at the potential of optimization in high-dimensional design spaces for shapes as well as passive and active control-leveraging the rapid development of flow control hardware and the increasingly powerful tools of artificial intelligence for optimization.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".