MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073361070 · doi:10.1080/10618560802432944

Application of the SAS turbulence model to predict the unsteady flow field behaviour in a forward centrifugal fan

2008· article· en· W2073361070 on OpenAlexaff
M. Younsi, A. Djerrada, T. Belamri, Florian Menter

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational journal of computational fluid dynamics · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerodynamics and Acoustics in Jet Flows
Canadian institutionsAnsys (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurbulenceMechanicsK-epsilon turbulence modelPhysicsK-omega turbulence modelFlow (mathematics)Turbulence modelingComputational fluid dynamicsField (mathematics)Statistical physicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the current study, the unsteady flow in a centrifugal fan is carried out using Computational Fluid Dynamics calculation based on the Scale Adaptive Simulation (SAS) approach to model the turbulence phenomenon. The SAS concept is based on the introduction of the von Karman length scale into the turbulence scale equation. The information provided by the von Karman length scale allows SAS models to dynamically adjust to resolved structures in an Unsteady Reynolds-Averaged Navier–Stokes (URANS) simulation, which results in a Large Eddy Simulation-like behaviour in unsteady regions of the flow field. At the same time, the model provides standard RANS capabilities in stable flow regions. The introduction of the von Karman length scale is based on the reformulation of Rottas's equation for the integral length scale. To validate the numerical results, the overall performances of the fan and the wall pressure fluctuations computed upon the volute casing surface are compared with the unsteady measured data.

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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations26
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational journal of computational fluid dynamicsSame topicAerodynamics and Acoustics in Jet FlowsFrench-language works237,207