MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Shear and vortex instabilities at deep part load of hydraulic turbines and their numerical prediction

2021· article· en· W3169664117 on OpenAlexaff
B Nennemann, Matthieu Melot, Christine Monette, M. Gauthier, S Afara, J Chamberland-Lauzon, T Jurvansuu

Bibliographic record

VenueIOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCavitation Phenomena in Pumps
Canadian institutionsAndritz (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVortexFrancis turbineBackflowTurbineMechanicsVibrationVorticityWakePhysicsEngineeringMechanical engineeringAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract For all types of turbines, deep part load operation (DPL) poses a challenge. An example of a dynamic phenomenon due to vaneless space vortices occurring at DPL is presented for three turbine types: a diagonal, a propeller and a Francis turbine. The backflow region occurring at DPL is often considered to be a main factor in these phenomena. Our results confirm that these backflow regions play an important role, but other factors also seem to be significant in specific cases. In our example of a diagonal turbine, the intersection of the backflow region with the leading edge of the blades seems to generate particularly high pressure pulsations and vibrations. In the case of the propeller turbine, large vaneless space vortices are found in CFD, but vibrations on the prototype machine are well within acceptable levels. Inspecting the flow at an operating point before large vaneless space vortices occur, shows high shear levels near the inner head cover that generate the high-intensity vortices at an even lower load. In the Francis turbine, half the number of strong vaneless space vortices interact with equally strong inter-blade vortices with vorticity of opposite sign to result in high dynamic blade torque. CFD simulations are well capable of capturing these phenomena, allowing them to be considered in the mechanical design of the turbine components for safe operation.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.606
Threshold uncertainty score0.407

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.162 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental ScienceSame topicCavitation Phenomena in PumpsFrench-language works237,207