MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3154388447 · doi:10.1007/s00193-020-00979-4

Numerical optimisation of a micro-wave rotor turbine using a quasi-two-dimensional CFD model and a hybrid algorithm

2021· article· en· W3154388447 on OpenAlexaff
Stefan Tüchler, Colin Copeland

Bibliographic record

VenueShock Waves · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpacecraft and Cryogenic Technologies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersUniversity of Bath
KeywordsComputational fluid dynamicsAerodynamicsMechanicsOverall pressure ratioTurbineRotor (electric)Computer scienceControl theory (sociology)Shock waveMechanical engineeringPhysicsGas compressorEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Wave rotors are unsteady flow machines that exchange energy through pressure waves. This has the potential for enhancing efficiency over a wide spectrum of applications, ranging from gas turbine topping cycles to pressure-gain combustors. This paper introduces an aerodynamic shape optimisation of a power generating non-axial micro-wave rotor turbine and seeks to enhance the shaft power output while preserving the wave rotor’s capacity to function as a pressure-exchanging device. The optimisation considers six parameters including rotor shape profile, wall thickness, and number of channels and is done using a hybrid genetic algorithm that couples an evolutionary algorithm with a surrogate model. The underlying numerical model is based on a transient, reduced-order, quasi-two dimensional computational fluid dynamics model at a fixed operating condition. The numerical results from the quasi-two-dimensional optimisation indicate that the best candidate design increases shaft power by a factor of 1.78 and imply a trade-off relationship between torque generation and pressure exchange capabilities. Further evaluation of the optimised design using three-dimensional computational fluid dynamics simulations confirms the increase in power output at the cost of increased entropy production. It is further disclosed that increased incidence losses during the initial opening of the channel to the high-pressure inlet duct compromise the shock strength of the primary shock wave and account for the decrease in pressure ratio. Finally, the numerical trends are validated using experimental data.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.212 · 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
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

Citations22
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueShock WavesSame topicSpacecraft and Cryogenic TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207