MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116736829 · doi:10.1002/fld.3974

Comparison of implicit and explicit AUSM‐family schemes for compressible multiphase flows

2014· article· en· W2116736829 on OpenAlexafffund
Qiulan Zeng, N. U. Aydemir, Fue‐Sang Lien, T. Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Canadian institutionsCanadian Nuclear LaboratoriesUniversity of Waterloo
FundersAtomic Energy of Canada Limited
KeywordsJacobian matrix and determinantDiscretizationSolverApplied mathematicsMathematicsBenchmark (surveying)Computational fluid dynamicsMathematical optimizationMathematical analysisMechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SUMMARY This paper makes the first attempt of extending implicit AUSM‐family schemes to multiphase flow simulations. Water faucet, air–water shock tube and oscillating manometer problems are used as benchmark tests with the generic four‐equation two‐fluid model. For solving the equations implicitly, Newton's method along with a sparse matrix solver (UMFPACK solver) is employed, and the numerical Jacobian matrix is calculated. Comparison between implicit and explicit AUSM‐family schemes is presented, indicating that similarly accurate results are obtained with both schemes. Furthermore, the water faucet problem is solved using both staggered and collocated grids. This investigation helps integrate high‐resolution schemes into staggered‐grid‐based computational algorithms. The influence of the interface pressure correction on the simulation results is also examined. Results show that the interfacial pressure correction introduces numerical dissipation. However, this dissipation cannot eliminate the overshoots because of the incompatibility of numerical discretization of the conservative and non‐conservative terms in the governing equations. The comparison of CPU time between implicit and explicit schemes is also studied, indicating that the implicit scheme is capable of improving the computational efficiency over its explicit counterpart. Copyright © 2014 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 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.396 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Numerical Methods in FluidsSame topicComputational Fluid Dynamics and AerodynamicsFrench-language works237,207