Numerical Investigation of Flow in a Runner of Low-Head Bulb Turbine and Correlation With Particle Image Velocimetry and Laser Doppler Velocimetry Measurements
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
It is a well-known fact and a much studied problematic that the performance of low-head hydraulic turbines is highly dependent on the runner–draft tube coupling. Around the optimal operating conditions, the efficiency of the turbine follows closely the performance of the draft tube that in turn depends on the velocity field exiting the runner. Hence, in order to predict correctly the performance of the draft tube using numerical simulations, the flow inside the runner must be simulated accurately. Using results from unique and detailed particle image velocimetry (PIV) and laser Doppler velocimetry (LDV) measurements inside the runner channel of a bulb turbine, this paper presents an extensive study of the predictive capability of a widely used simulation methodology based on unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equations with a k-epsilon closure model. The main objective was to identify the main parameters influencing the numerical predictions of the velocity field at the draft tube entrance in order to increase the accuracy of the simulated performance of the turbine. This paper relies on a comparison of simulations results with already published LDV measurements in the draft tube cone, interblade LDV, and stereoscopic PIV measurements within the runner. This paper presents a detailed discussion of numerical–experimental data correlation inside the runner channel and at the drat tube entrance. It shows that, contrary to widely circulated ideas, the near-wall predictions at the draft tube entrance is surprisingly good while the simulation accuracy inside the runner channels deteriorates from the leading to the trailing edges.
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