MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138963854 · doi:10.1002/fld.2119

A two‐grid fictitious domain method for direct simulation of flows involving non‐interacting particles of a very small size

2009· article· en· W2138963854 on OpenAlexaff
Antoine Dechaume, Warren H. Finlay, P Minev

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle Dynamics in Fluid Flows
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEllipsoidGridDomain (mathematical analysis)Scale (ratio)Fictitious domain methodImmersed boundary methodFlow (mathematics)Computational fluid dynamicsCentroidComputer scienceAspect ratio (aeronautics)MechanicsAlgorithmGeometryBoundary (topology)Computational scienceMathematical optimizationMathematicsPhysicsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The full resolution of flows involving particles whose scale is hundreds or thousands of times smaller than the size of the flow domain is a challenging problem. A naive approach would require a tremendous number of degrees of freedom in order to bridge the gap between the two spatial scales involved. The approach used in the present study employs two grids whose grid size fits the two different scales involved, one of them (the micro‐scale grid) being embedded into the other (the macro‐scale grid). Then resolving first the larger scale on the macro‐scale grid, we transfer the so obtained data to the boundary of the micro‐scale grid and solve the smaller size problem. Since the particle is moving throughout the macro‐scale domain, the micro‐scale grid is fixed at the centroid of the moving particle and therefore moves with it. In this study we combine such an approach with a fictitious domain formulation of the problem resulting in a very efficient algorithm that is also easy to implement in an existing CFD code. We validate the method against existing experimental data for a sedimenting sphere, as well as analytical results for motion of an inertia‐less ellipsoid in a shear flow. Finally, we apply the method to the flow of a high aspect ratio ellipsoid in a model of a human lung airway bifurcation. Copyright © 2009 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.349
Threshold uncertainty score0.892

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.373 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Numerical Methods in FluidsSame topicParticle Dynamics in Fluid FlowsFrench-language works237,207