MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114531356 · doi:10.1177/0954411914542170

A novel periodic boundary condition for computational hemodynamics studies

2014· article· en· W2114531356 on OpenAlexaff
Fereshteh Bahramian, Hadi Mohammadi

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part H Journal of Engineering in Medicine · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBoundary value problemComputational fluid dynamicsBoundary conditions in CFDTurbulenceDifferent types of boundary conditions in fluid dynamicsLarge eddy simulationPeriodic boundary conditionsReynolds numberMechanicsNo-slip conditionFlow (mathematics)Computer scienceBoundary (topology)Fluid dynamicsMathematicsMixed boundary conditionPhysicsMathematical analysisRobin boundary condition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In computational fluid dynamics models for hemodynamics applications, boundary conditions remain one of the major issues in obtaining accurate fluid flow predictions. For major cardiovascular models, the realistic boundary conditions are not available. In order to address this issue, the whole computational domain needs to be modeled, which is practically impossible. For simulating fully developed turbulent flows using the large eddy simulation and dynamic numerical solution methods, which are very popular in hemodynamics studies, periodic boundary conditions are suitable. This is mainly because the computational domain can be reduced considerably. In this study, a novel periodic boundary condition is proposed, which is based on mass flow condition. The proposed boundary condition is applied on a square duct for the sake of validation. The mass-based condition was shown to obtain the solution in 15% less time. As such, the mass-based condition has two decisive advantages: first, the solution for a given Reynolds number can be obtained in a single simulation because of the direct specification of the mass flow, and second, simulations can be made more quickly.

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)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part H Journal of Engineering in MedicineSame topicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent FlowsFrench-language works237,207