Detached eddy simulation on the turbulent flow in a stirred tank
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A detached eddy simulation (DES), a large‐eddy simulation (LES), and a k ‐ε‐based Reynolds averaged Navier‐Stokes (RANS) calculation on the single phase turbulent flow in a fully baffled stirred tank, agitated by a Rushton turbine is presented. The DES used here is based on the Spalart‐Allmaras turbulence model solved on a grid containing about a million control volumes. The standard k‐ε and LES were considered here for comparison purposes. Predictions of the impeller‐angle‐resolved and time‐averaged turbulent flow have been evaluated and compared with data from laser doppler anemometry measurements. The effects of the turbulence model on the predictions of the mean velocity components and the turbulent kinetic energy are most pronounced in the (highly anisotropic) trailing vortex core region, with specifically DES performing well. The LES—that was performed on the same grid as the DES—appears to lack resolution in the boundary layers on the surface of the impeller. The findings suggest that DES provides a more accurate prediction of the features of the turbulent flows in a stirred tank compared with RANS‐based models and at the same time alleviates resolution requirements of LES close to walls. © 2011 American Institute of Chemical Engineers AIChE J, 58: 3224–3241, 2012
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 it