Experimental and numerical characterization of the flowfield in the large‐scale UW live fire research facility
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recently, a large‐scale (19.5m × 15.4m × 12.8m) live fire research facility (LFRF) has been built at the University of Waterloo with the capabilities of conducting controlled and systematic experimental studies to investigate the behaviour of large fuel spill fires in crosswinds. The present work is focused on characterizing the wind generated by banked fans and the flowfield in the LFRF using experimental techniques and large eddy simulation (LES). Two configurations are examined: the empty enclosure and the enclosure with a large blocking object (cylinder) aligned perpendicular to the flow direction. Detailed velocity measurements are provided throughout the facility. The experimental results show that the flowfield inside the empty enclosure is consistent with the behaviour of a bluff wall jet. Three‐dimensional LES are performed for the same two configurations. The experimental velocity profiles are used to set the inflow conditions in the calculations. The numerical predictions are all within the experimental uncertainty in the core region for the empty enclosure. For the case with the cylinder, the size of the wake is very well reproduced by the simulations and the shedding frequency corresponds to the value given in published experimental studies of a flow over free standing cylinders. The present LES model is also capable of predicting more detailed flow characteristics such as the stagnation and recirculation region, compared with what was achievable in the large‐scale experiments. In the wake the time‐averaged velocities from the LES results are overpredicted. Possible sources of discrepancy are discussed. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".