The Collection Efficiency of Shielded and Unshielded Precipitation Gauges. Part I: CFD Airflow Modeling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The aerodynamic response of snow gauges when exposed to the wind is responsible for a significant reduction of their collection performance. The modifications induced by the gauge and the windshield onto the space–time patterns of the undisturbed airflow deviate the snowflake trajectories. In Part I, the disturbed air velocity field in the vicinity of shielded and unshielded gauge configurations is investigated. In Part II, the airflow is the basis for a particle tracking model of snowflake trajectories to estimate the collection efficiency. A Geonor T-200B gauge inside a single Alter shield is simulated for wind speeds varying from 1 to 8 m s−1. Both time-averaged and time-dependent computational fluid dynamics simulations are performed, based on Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) and large-eddy simulation (LES) models, respectively. A shear stress tensor k–Ω model (where k is the turbulent kinetic energy and Ω is the turbulent specific dissipation rate) is used for the RANS formulation and solved within a finite-volume method. The LES is implemented with a Smagorinsky subgrid-scale method that models the subgrid stresses as a gradient-diffusion process. The RANS simulations confirm the attenuation of the airflow velocity above the gauge when using a single Alter shield, but the generated turbulence above the orifice rim is underestimated. The intensity and spatial extension of the LES-resolved turbulent region show a dependency on the wind speed that was not detected by the RANS. The time-dependent analysis showed the propagation of turbulent structures and the impact on the turbulent kinetic energy above the gauge collecting section.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".