MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2567494196 · doi:10.1088/1755-1315/49/6/062010

A low-dissipation monotonicity-preserving scheme for turbulent flows in hydraulic turbines

2016· article· en· W2567494196 on OpenAlexafffund
Liu Yang, Siva Nadarajah

Bibliographic record

VenueIOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsReynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equationsTurbulenceDissipationLimiterMechanicsLarge eddy simulationReynolds numberVortexReynolds stressDetached eddy simulationTurbulence kinetic energyPhysicsClassical mechanicsComputer scienceThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this work is to improve the inherent dissipation of the numerical schemes under the framework of a Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) simulation. The governing equations are solved by the finite volume method with the k-ω SST turbulence model. Instead of the van Albada limiter, a novel eddy-preserving limiter is employed in the MUSCL reconstructions to minimize the dissipation of the vortex. The eddy-preserving procedure inactivates the van Albada limiter in the swirl plane and reduces the artificial dissipation to better preserve vortical flow structures. Steady and unsteady simulations of turbulent flows in a straight channel and a straight asymmetric diffuser are demonstrated. Profiles of velocity, Reynolds shear stress and turbulent kinetic energy are presented and compared against large eddy simulation (LES) and/or experimental data. Finally, comparisons are made to demonstrate the capability of the eddy-preserving limiter scheme.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.185 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental ScienceSame topicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent FlowsFrench-language works237,207