Multi-fidelity design optimization of Francis turbine runner blades
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A robust multi-fidelity design algorithm has been developed, focusing to efficiently handle industrial hydraulic runner design considerations. The computational task is split between low- and high-fidelity phases in order to properly balance the CFD cost and required accuracy in different design stages. In the low-fidelity phase, a derivative-free optimization method employs an inviscid flow solver to obtain the major desired characteristics of a good design in a relatively fast iterative process. A limited number of candidates are selected among feasible optimization solutions by a newly developed filtering process. The main function of the filtering process is to select some promising candidates to be sent into the high-fidelity phase, which have significantly different geometries, and also are dominant in their own territories. The high-fidelity phase aims to accurately evaluate those promising candidates in order to select the one which is closest to design targets. A low-head runner case study has shown the ability of this methodology to identify an optimized blade through a relatively low computational effort, which is significantly different from the base geometry.
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 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".