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 OpenAlexafffund
A. Behzadmehr, Y. Mercadier, Nicolas Galanis

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.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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 score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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

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

Citations21
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fluids EngineeringSame topicTurbomachinery Performance and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207