MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013052758 · doi:10.1115/1.2173293

Sensitivity Analysis of Entrance Design Parameters of a Backward-Inclined Centrifugal Fan Using DOE Method and CFD Calculations

2005· article· en· W2013052758 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluids Engineering · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTurbomachinery Performance and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSolidityDesign of experimentsComputational fluid dynamicsSensitivity (control systems)Centrifugal fanRADIUSEngineeringStructural engineeringFactorial experimentFractional factorial designMechanical fanMechanicsMechanical engineeringSimulationComputer sciencePhysicsMathematicsAerospace engineeringInlet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Centrifugal fans with an electric motor included in the hub are commonly used in HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air conditioning) systems. A design of experiments (DOE) has been performed to study the effect of the entrance conditions of a backward-inclined centrifugal fan on its efficiency. The parameters involved are the base radius of the motor hub, the radius of the fan entry section, the deceleration factor throughout the entry zone (from the entry of the fan to the entry of the blade), and the solidity factor. Numerical simulation coupled with the DOE has been used for the sensitivity analysis of the entrance parameters. Initially, a complete factorial plan (24) was performed to screen the most influent parameters and interactions. This has shown that the motor’s cap radius, as well as its interactions with other parameters, is not significant. A second DOE, using composite central design (CCD which has a second order of accuracy) has then been performed on the remaining parameters (radius of the fan entry section, deceleration factor, and the solidity factor). The effects of these parameters and their interactions on the fan efficiency are now presented. A linear regression with three parameters has been performed to establish the efficiency distribution map. The methodology employed is validated by comparing the predicted results from the DOE and those from the numerical simulation of the corresponding fan.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.209
Threshold uncertainty score0.529

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.234 · 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