MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Restricted nonlinear simulations of flow over riblets: Characterizing drag reduction and its breakdown

2025· article· en· W4410840479 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaowei Zhu, Bianca Viggiano, Benjamin Minnick, Dennice F. Gayme

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersOffice of Naval ResearchMaryland Advanced Research Computing CenterNational Science Foundation
KeywordsDragReduction (mathematics)MechanicsFlow (mathematics)Materials scienceNonlinear systemPhysicsMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The restricted nonlinear (RNL) model is employed as low-order representation of turbulent flow over riblets at R e τ ≈ 395 . Comparisons with direct numerical simulations (DNS) verify the ability of the model to accurately capture low-order statistics, as well as trends in drag-alteration and secondary motion as a function of riblet geometry and spacing. We demonstrate the ability of the RNL model to reproduce additional flow features by decomposing the roughness function to isolate contributions from the total stress and comparing its predictions to DNS data. An analysis of the spectra of Reynolds shear stress shows that the RNL model captures Kelvin-Helmholtz-like rollers linked to riblet drag reduction breakdown but slightly over predicts the total stresses. The reproduction of the overall trends in stresses and flow features linked to the breakdown of riblet induced drag-reduction suggests that the nonlinearity and scale interactions retained in the RNL system are adequate to capture the key mechanisms underlying turbulent flow over a range of riblet geometries. These results also indicate that examining the limitations of the model may provide insight into the critical nonlinear interactions underlying drag alteration due to riblets .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.594
Threshold uncertainty score0.413

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Heat and Fluid FlowSame topicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent FlowsFrench-language works237,207