Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Separated Flows Around Elongated Rectangular Prism With Different Leading-Edge Separation Angles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The effects of leading-edge separation angle on the spatiotemporal dynamics and turbulent characteristics in separated flow around an elongated bluff body with a chord-to-height ratio of 6 are investigated using time solved and double-frame particle image velocimetry. Six different leading edge angles are investigated, with half interior angles of θ = 15°, 30°, 45°, 60°, 75°, and 90°. The blockage ratio and Reynolds number based on the thickness of the prism and freestream velocity (Re = Ueh/v) were maintained at 4.7% and 10,000, respectively. The effects of varying the leading edge angle on the mean flow, Reynolds stresses, and turbulent kinetic energy and its budget terms are studied. The spectra of the fluctuating velocities in the wake region are analyzed to evaluate the effects of the leading-edge angle on the vortex shedding process. Reattachment length and recirculation length increased with increasing leading-edge angle, and the Reynolds stresses and turbulent kinetic energy were highest for the smallest leading edge angle, θ = 15°. Turbulent kinetic energy production was highest in the wake region for θ = 15° and decreased with increasing θ. The dominant Strouhal number decreased with increasing θ.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".