Buoyancy‐corrected <i>k</i>–ε models and large eddy simulation applied to a large axisymmetric helium plume
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The present numerical study is focused on testing two different modeling approaches to simulate a large turbulent buoyant helium plume, in particular the near‐field region. First, buoyancy‐corrected k –ε models are applied in Reynolds‐averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) calculations, then large eddy simulation (LES) using a standard Smagorinsky model is examined. Good results are produced using the buoyancy‐corrected models, in particular, excellent agreement is achieved for the radial profiles of the streamwise velocity. However, the predictions are very sensitive to the choice of the buoyancy constant, C 3ε , in the models. The present LES calculations show that the puffing frequency is accurately predicted. Predictions for the time‐averaged velocities are within experimental uncertainty at all locations. The predicted plume concentrations are in good agreement at the base of the plume, but the centerline values are overpredicted farther downstream. The higher‐order statistics are best predicted with the finest mesh. A sensitivity analysis on grid refinement, values of the Smagorinsky constant and the Schmidt number are included. 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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it