MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988117251 · doi:10.1103/physreve.79.026701

Boundary slip from the immersed boundary lattice Boltzmann models

2009· article· en· W1988117251 on OpenAlexafffund
Guigao Le, Junfeng Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenuePhysical Review E · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicLattice Boltzmann Simulation Studies
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLattice Boltzmann methodsBoundary layerMechanicsPhysicsBoundary value problemBoundary layer thicknessWork (physics)Statistical physicsShear flowBoundary (topology)Kinetic energySlip (aerodynamics)Flow velocityImmersed boundary methodFlow (mathematics)Classical mechanicsBoltzmann constantMathematical analysisMathematicsThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We report an interesting and important observation of the velocity fields from immersed boundary lattice Boltzmann methods (IB-LBM). The computed velocity profiles can deviate from theoretical predictions greatly even for very simple flow situations, both in the immersed boundary layer and the bulk region. A rigorous analysis of the IB-LBM simulated velocity for a symmetric shear flow is carried out, and the analytical solutions indicate a strong dependence of velocity on the relaxation parameter (kinetic viscosity). Also our simulations demonstrate that simply increasing the immersed boundary layer thickness is not an efficient approach to reduce such velocity discrepancy. We hope this work will bring the awareness of this essential issue to people using IB-LBM for various flow situations.

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)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations94
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhysical Review ESame topicLattice Boltzmann Simulation StudiesFrench-language works237,207