Experimental Study of Three-Dimensional Turbulent Offset Jets and Wall Jets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An experimental study was designed to examine and document the development and structures of turbulent 3D offset jets. The generic 3D wall jets at the same Reynolds numbers was used as the basis of comparison. The experiments were performed using a high resolution particle image velocimetry technique to perform velocity measurements at three Reynolds numbers based on the jet exit diameter and velocities of 5000, 10000 and 20000 and four jet offset height ratios of 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 and 4.0. The measurements were performed in the streamwise/wall-normal plane from 0 to 120 jet exit diameters and in the streamwise/lateral plane from 10 to 80 jet exit diameters. The velocity data were analyzed using (i) mean velocities and one-point statistics such as turbulence intensities, Reynolds stresses, triple velocity products and some terms in the transport equations for the turbulence kinetic energy, (ii) two-point velocity correlations to study how the turbulence quantities are correlated as well as the length scale and angle of inclination of the hairpin-like vortex structures, and (iii) proper orthogonal decomposition to examine the energy distribution and the role of the large scale structures in the turbulence intensities and Reynolds shear stresses. The decay of the maximum mean velocities and spread of the jet half widths became independent of Reynolds number much earlier in the generic wall jet than the offset jets. The flow development is delayed with increasing offset heights. The decay rate and wall-normal spread rate increased with the offset heights, whereas the lateral spread rate decreased with offset heights, which is consistent with previous studies. The two-point auto-correlations and the proper orthogonal decomposition results indicate the presence of more large scale structures in the outer and self-similar regions than in the inner and developing regions. The iso-contours of the streamwise autocorrelations in the inner regions were inclined at similar angles of β = 11.2 ± 0.6 degrees, which are in good agreement with reported values in boundary layer studies. The angles decrease with increasing distance from the wall.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".