MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898365407 · doi:10.1115/fedsm2018-83431

Evaluating the Ability of SLW Model in Numerical Simulation of Radiative Turbulent Reacting Flow in Industrial Application

2018· article· en· W2898365407 on OpenAlexaff
Masoud Darbandi, Mohammad Bagher Barezban, G. E. Schneider

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicRadiative Heat Transfer Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersSharif University of Technology
KeywordsTurbulenceRadiative transferCombustionThermal radiationMechanicsHeat transferLarge eddy simulationReynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equationsDissipationThermodynamicsChemistryPhysicsOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, the turbulent reacting flow in an industrial furnace is numerically simulated using the RANS equations. The two-equation standard k-ε and the eddy dissipation models are used respectively to close the turbulent closure problem and to consider the turbulence-chemistry interaction. The radiation transfer equation is solved using the discrete ordinates method (DOM). To calculate the radiation absorption coefficient in participating combustion gases, we use the spectral line-based weighted sum of grey gases (SLW) model and compare the achieved results with famous gray-based model, i.e., the weighted-sum-of-gray-gases (WSGG) model. The results of this research show that using the SLW model, the predicted heat transfer from the flame to the furnace walls is reduced due to the thermal radiation. So, the predicted temperature filed increases up to 5% near the outlet of furnace in comparison with the results of WSGG model, which is in more agreement with the experimental data. These results indicate that if one wishes to accurately predict the temperature field and the temperature sensitive quantities such as the NOx emission, one should use the spectral-based models to calculate the radiation absorption coefficient. The details are discussed in the results section.

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)0.001
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 score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.297

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.255 · 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRadiative Heat Transfer StudiesFrench-language works237,207