Evaluation of Turbulence Models Using Direct Numerical and Large-Eddy Simulation Data
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
The performance of some commonly used eddy-viscosity turbulence models has been evaluated using direct numerical simulation (DNS) and large-eddy simulation (LES) data. Two configurations have been tested, a two-dimensional boundary layer undergoing pressure-driven separation, and a square duct. The DNS and LES were used to assess the k−ε, ζ−f, k−ω, and Spalart–Allmaras models. For the two-dimensional separated boundary layer, anisotropic effects are not significant and the eddy-viscosity assumption works well. However, the near-wall treatment used in k−ε models was found to have a critical effect on the predictive accuracy of the model (and, in particular, of separation and reattachment points). None of the wall treatments tested resulted in accurate prediction of the flow field. Better results were obtained with models that do not require special treatment in the inner layer (ζ−f, k−ω, and Spalart–Allmaras models). For the square duct calculation, only a nonlinear constitutive relation was found to be able to capture the secondary flow, giving results in agreement with the data. Linear models had significant error.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it