Numerical Simulation of a Pool Fire and Large Object in a Cross-Wind
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present investigation is focused on assessing the capabilities of Large Eddy Simulations (LES) using simplified sub-models for combustion and soot in a specific fire scenario. Fire development resulting from an aviation fuel spill close to a plane fuselage is considered. The computational domain and boundary conditions are defined according to the experimental configuration used in tests run by the Fire Research Group at the University of Waterloo. The present setup consists of a 2-m-diameter pool fueled with kerosene and located 1-m-upstream of a 2.7-m-diameter culvert in a large enclosure. A cross-wind with a velocity of 13 m/s is imposed on the fire and culvert. The calculations are time-dependent and three-dimensional. Sensitivity to the grid refinement, size of the enclosure and wind profiles is first investigated. Comparison between measured temperatures and numerical results across the computational domain is made. Velocity profiles are also examined. Reasonable agreement with the experiments is found. In the light of the present results, directions for future work are also discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".