MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088360452 · doi:10.1063/1.1760231

Modeling of an induction plasma under transient turbulent flow conditions

2004· article· en· W2088360452 on OpenAlexaff
R. Ye, Takamasa Ishigaki, Maher I. Boulos

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Physics · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicPlasma Diagnostics and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersJapan Society for the Promotion of Science
KeywordsTurbulenceK-epsilon turbulence modelMechanicsPhysicsK-omega turbulence modelPlasmaTurbulence modelingLaminar flowThermodynamicsTurbulence kinetic energy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A renormalization group (RNG) k-ε turbulence model was employed to investigate the role of turbulence for the transient behavior of the radio frequency induction plasma discharge. Time-dependent conservation equations for the plasma and turbulence under local thermal equilibrium (LTE) conditions were solved numerically in two-dimensional, axisymmetric coordinates. Responses of energy, momentum, and turbulence to steplike and pulsed power changes in an Ar-H2 plasma with a hydrogen volume concentration of 10.9%, and a total gas flow rate of 104.0 slpm were studied. The corresponding Reynolds number at the inlet of the discharge cavity was 2667. The turbulence model was validated qualitatively by comparing the predicted results with experimental observations under pulsed power conditions. It is found the transient behavior of the plasma energy and momentum are mainly governed by radial convection, while that of the turbulence is primarily determined by axial convection. These gave rise to a 5–10 ms delay in the response of the turbulence lagging behind the temperature field, for sudden power changes, under current operating conditions. A comparison between the results predicted using the RNG k-ε turbulence model and those obtained using the laminar model indicates the presence of turbulence leads to a longer relaxation time of plasma. Under pulsed power conditions, the plasma temperature responds to power changes almost instantaneously, and it is always in a transient state. In contrast, variation in the relative turbulent viscosity is insignificant and it is concluded that the turbulence is in a quasisteady state when the period of a pulse is between 10 and 15 ms. By comparing the predicted results with images obtained using a high-speed camera (0.67 ms/frame) under the same operating conditions, we found that the turbulence model predicted a more accurate transient behavior in terms of plasma volume and temperature than the laminar model does.

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 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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.345

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations8
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied PhysicsSame topicPlasma Diagnostics and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207