MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2111342303 · doi:10.1115/ajk2011-15008

Numerical Assessment of Turbulent Models at a Critical Regime on Unstructured Meshes

2011· article· en· W2111342303 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ju Yeol You, Oh Joon Kwon

Bibliographic record

VenueASME-JSME-KSME 2011 Joint Fluids Engineering Conference: Volume 1, Symposia – Parts A, B, C, and D · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equationsTurbulenceLaminar flowFinite volume methodMechanicsDiscretizationInviscid flowReynolds numberVortex sheddingPhysicsBoundary layerNavier–Stokes equationsMathematicsCompressibilityMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main objective of the present study is to investigate the performance of different turbulent models for the flow simulation around a circular cylinder at a critical Reynolds number regime (Re = 8.5×105, Tu = 0.7%). To simulate the various flow features such as laminar-turbulent transition inside the boundary layer and the unsteady vortex shedding in the wake region, a hybrid RANS/LES model (SAS model) and a correlation-based transition model (γ - Reθ model) were used and the feasibilities of them for the flow simulation at a critical Reynolds number regime were demonstrated. A vertex-centered finite-volume method was adopted to discretize the incompressible Navier-Stokes equations and an unstructured mesh technique was used to discretize the computational domain. The inviscid fluxes were evaluated by using 2nd-order Roe’s FDS and the viscous fluxes were computed based on central differencing. A dual-time stepping method and the Gauss-Seidel iteration were used for unsteady time integration. To reduce the computational costs, the parallelization strategy using METIS and MPI libraries was adopted. The unsteady characteristics and time-averaged quantities of the flow fields were compared between the turbulent models. The numerical results have been also compared with experimental data. At the critical regime, turbulent models have showed quite different results due to the different abilities of each model to predict various flow features such as laminar-turbulent transition, unsteady vortex shedding.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueASME-JSME-KSME 2011 Joint Fluids Engineering Conference: Volume 1, Symposia – Parts A, B, C, and DSame topicFluid Dynamics and Vibration AnalysisFrench-language works237,207