Comparison of Robustness and Efficiency for SIMPLE and CLEAR Algorithms with 13 High-Resolution Convection Schemes in Compressible Flows
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 In this article, a comparison is made between the robustness and efficiency of the CLEAR algorithm and the SIMPLE algorithm on nonorthogonal curvilinear coordinates for compressible flows. Thirteen different high-order convection schemes are employed in the calculations. Subsonic flow, transsonic flow, and supersonic flow in a channel with a circular arc bump and compressible flow in a Laval nozzle are used as test cases. The CLEAR algorithm shows huge potential to compute the transsonic flow in the Laval nozzle and high-speed compressible flows. Results with the ADBQUICKEST scheme, the HLPA scheme, and the MUSCL scheme are stable for both the compressible SIMPLE and CLEAR algorithms for all the mentioned cases. Notes Results before "/" are obtained using CLEAR algorithm; results behind "/" are obtained using SIMPLE algorithm. "—", solution is not convergent; "O," result is oscillating; "S," result is stable. Results before "/" are obtained using CLEAR algorithm; results behind "/" are obtained using SIMPLE algorithm. "—", solution is not convergent; "O," result is oscillating; "S," result is stable. Results before "/" are obtained using CLEAR algorithm; results behind "/" are obtained using SIMPLE algorithm. "—", solution is not convergent; "O," result is oscillating; "S," result is stable. Results before "/" are obtained using CLEAR algorithm; results behind "/" are obtained using SIMPLE algorithm. "—", solution is not convergent; "O," result is oscillating; "S," result is stable. Color versions of one or more of the figures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/unhb.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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