MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2180539980 · doi:10.1051/e3sconf/20150503001

Hybrid turbulence models for atmospheric flow: A proper comparison with RANS models

2015· article· en· W2180539980 on OpenAlexafffund
Mary C. Bautista, Louis Dufresne, Christian Masson

Bibliographic record

VenueE3S Web of Conferences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWind and Air Flow Studies
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCompute Canada
KeywordsReynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equationsTurbulencePlanetary boundary layerDetached eddy simulationLarge eddy simulationMechanicsFlow (mathematics)MeteorologyBoundary layerTurbulence modelingEnvironmental sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A compromise between the required accuracy and the need for affordable simulations for the wind industry might be achieved with the use of hybrid turbulence models. Detached-Eddy Simulation (DES) [1] is a hybrid technique that yields accurate results only if it is used according to its original formulation [2]. Due to its particular characteristics (i.e., the type of mesh required), the modeling of the atmospheric flow might always fall outside the original scope of DES. An enhanced version of DES called Simplify Improved Delayed Detached-Eddy Simulation (SIDDES) [3] can overcome this and other disadvantages of DES. In this work the neutrally stratified atmospheric flow over a flat terrain with homogeneous roughness will be analyzed using a Reynolds-Averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) model called k – ω SST (shear stress transport) [4], and the hybrids k – ω SST-DES and k – ω SST-SIDDES models. An obvious test is to validate these hybrid approaches and asses their advantages and disadvantages over the pure RANS model. However, for several reasons the technique to drive the atmospheric flow is generally different for RANS and LES or hybrid models. The flow in a RANS simulation is usually driven by a constant shear stress imposed at the top boundary [5], therefore modeling only the atmospheric surface layer. On the contrary the LES and hybrid simulations are usually driven by a constant pressure gradient, thus a whole atmospheric boundary layer is simulated. Rigorously, this represents two different simulated cases making the model comparison not trivial. Nevertheless, both atmospheric flow cases are studied with the mentioned models. The results prove that a simple comparison of the time average turbulent quantities obtained by RANS and hybrid simulations is not easily achieved. The RANS simulations yield consistent results for the atmospheric surface layer case, while the hybrid model results are not correct. As for the atmospheric boundary layer case, no meaningful conclusion could be established for RANS, and the DES results are not satisfactory. However the SIDDES model is capable of reproducing accurately the atmospheric boundary layer over flat terrain.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.215
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.196 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueE3S Web of ConferencesSame topicWind and Air Flow StudiesFrench-language works237,207