MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2768396942 · doi:10.1002/nme.5738

A quasi‐implicit characteristic–based penalty finite‐element method for incompressible laminar viscous flows

2017· article· en· W2768396942 on OpenAlexaff
Chen Jiang, Zhiqian Zhang, Xu Han, Guirong Liu, Guangjun Gao, Tao Lin

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Numerical Methods in Computational Mathematics
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Education and Child Care
FundersChina Scholarship CouncilNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsFinite element methodPenalty methodQuadrilateralConvergence (economics)MathematicsNode (physics)Laminar flowCompressibilityIncompressible flowApplied mathematicsPressure-correction methodMixed finite element methodExtended finite element methodMathematical analysisFlow (mathematics)Mathematical optimizationGeometryMechanicsPhysicsStructural engineeringEngineeringAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary In this paper, a novel characteristic–based penalty (CBP) scheme for the finite‐element method (FEM) is proposed to solve 2‐dimensional incompressible laminar flow. This new CBP scheme employs the characteristic‐Galerkin method to stabilize the convective oscillation. To mitigate the incompressible constraint, the selective reduced integration (SRI) and the recently proposed selective node–based smoothed FEM (SNS‐FEM) are used for the 4‐node quadrilateral element (CBP‐Q4SRI) and the 3‐node triangular element (CBP‐T3SNS), respectively. Meanwhile, the reduced integration (RI) for Q4 element (CBP‐Q4RI) and NS‐FEM for T3 element (CBP‐T3NS) with CBP scheme are also investigated. The quasi‐implicit CBP scheme is applied to allow a large time step for sufficient large penalty parameters. Due to the absences of pressure degree of freedoms, the quasi‐implicit CBP‐FEM has higher efficiency than quasi‐implicit CBS‐FEM. In this paper, the CBP‐Q4SRI has been verified and validated with high accuracy, stability, and fast convergence. Unexpectedly, CBP‐Q4RI is of no instability, high accuracy, and even slightly faster convergence than CBP‐Q4SRI. For unstructured T3 elements, CBP‐T3SNS also shows high accuracy and good convergence but with pressure oscillation using a large penalty parameter; CBP‐T3NS produces oscillated wrong velocity and pressure results. In addition, the applicable ranges of penalty parameter for different proposed methods have been investigated.

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)0.000
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.393 · 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

Citations14
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Numerical Methods in EngineeringSame topicAdvanced Numerical Methods in Computational MathematicsFrench-language works237,207