MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1659775582 · doi:10.1002/fld.3884

An immersed boundary method for fluid flows around rigid objects

2014· article· en· W1659775582 on OpenAlexafffund
A. Jendoubi, Driss Yakoubi, A. Fortin, C. Tibirna

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLattice Boltzmann Simulation Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPolygon meshBoundary (topology)Finite element methodRigid bodyBase (topology)Immersed boundary methodFlow (mathematics)MathematicsMesh generationGeometryComputer scienceMathematical analysisClassical mechanicsStructural engineeringEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY In this paper, we present an immersed boundary method for solving fluid flow problems in the presence of static and moving rigid objects. A FEM is used starting from a base mesh that does not represent exactly rigid objects (non‒body‒conforming mesh). At each time step, the base mesh is locally modified to provide a new mesh fitting the boundary of the rigid objects. The mesh is also locally improved using edge swapping to enhance the quality of the elements. The Navier–Stokes equations are then solved on this new mesh. The velocity of moving objects is imposed through standard Dirichlet boundary conditions. We consider a number of test problems and compare the numerical solutions with those obtained on classical body‒fitted meshes whenever possible. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.390 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations7
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Numerical Methods in FluidsSame topicLattice Boltzmann Simulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207