MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3177706657 · doi:10.3390/w13141883

Efficiency Assessment for Rehabilitated Francis Turbines Using URANS Simulations

2021· article· en· W3177706657 on OpenAlexafffund
Philippe Martineau Rousseau, Azzeddine Soulaïmani, Michel Sabourin

Bibliographic record

VenueWater · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCavitation Phenomena in Pumps
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTurbineHydraulic turbinesMarine engineeringFlow (mathematics)Gas turbinesComputational fluid dynamicsComputer scienceEngineeringAutomotive engineeringEnvironmental scienceMechanical engineeringSimulationAerospace engineeringMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the large number of aging hydraulic turbines in North America, rehabilitation is a growing market as these turbines have low efficiency compared to modern ones. Computational Fluid Dynamics identifies components with poor hydraulic performance. The models often used in industry are based on individually analyzing the sub-components of a turbine instead of full turbine simulations due to computational and time limitations. An industrial case has shown that such analyses may lead to underestimating the efficiency increases by modifying the stay vane. The unsteady full turbine simulation proposes to simulate all components simultaneously to assess this efficiency augmentation due to stay vane rehabilitation. The developed simulation methodology is used to evaluate the efficiency increase and the flow of two rehabilitated turbines with stay vane modifications. Comparison with model tests shows the accuracy of the simulations. However, the methodology used shows imprecision in predicting the efficiency increase compared to model tests. Further works should consider the use of more complex flow modeling methods to measure the efficiency increase by the stay vane modifications.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWaterSame topicCavitation Phenomena in PumpsFrench-language works237,207