MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009888287 · doi:10.1115/fedsm2002-31100

Parallel Dynamic Large Eddy Simulation of Turbulent Flow Around MIRA Model

2002· article· en· W2009888287 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
H.G. Choi, Shin-Hyoung Kang, Jinkyoung Yoo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDomain decomposition methodsLarge eddy simulationMessage Passing InterfaceTurbulenceParallel computingComputer scienceComputational scienceDetached eddy simulationComputational fluid dynamicsMechanicsPhysicsFinite element methodReynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equationsMessage passing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For the large scale computation of turbulent flows around an arbitrarily shaped body, a parallel LES (large eddy simulation) code has been recently developed in which domain decomposition method is adopted. METIS and MPI (message passing interface) libraries are used for domain partitioning and data communication between processors, respectively. For unsteady computation of the incompressible Navier-Stokes equation, 4-step splitting finite element algorithm [1] is adopted and Smagorinsky or dynamic LES model can be chosen for the modeling of small eddies in turbulent flows. For the outlet (open) boundary condition, a Dirichlet boundary condition for the pressure is proposed. For the validation and performance-estimation of the parallel code, a three-dimensional laminar flow generated by natural convection inside a cube has been solved. We have confirmed that our code gives accurate results compared with previous studies. Regarding the speed-up of the code, the present parallel code with parallel block-Jacobi preconditioner is about 50 times faster than the corresponding serial code with 64 processors when approximately one million grid points are used. Most of the CPU time is consumed in solving elliptic type pressure equation. For the validation of LES models, turbulent channel flows are simulated at Re = 180, which is based on the channel half height and friction velocity using 51 × 71 × 71 grid system. It has been shown that our results agree well with the well-known results by Kim et al. [2] with less grid points than used by them in terms of time-averaged velocity field and velocity fluctuation. Lastly, we have solved the turbulent flow around MIRA (Motor Industry Research Association) model at Re = 1.6 × 106 which is based on the model height and inlet free stream velocity. Both Smagorinsky and dynamic models are tested, comparing estimated drag coefficients and pressure distribution along the model surface with the existing experimental data [3]. With the help of the parallel code developed in this study, we are able to obtain a unsteady solution of the turbulent flow field around a vehicle discretized by approximately three million grid points within two weeks when 32 IBM-SP2-processors are used. The calculated drag coefficient agrees better with the experimental result [3] than those using two equation turbulence models [4].

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComputational Fluid Dynamics and AerodynamicsFrench-language works237,207