MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3197594128 · doi:10.3390/pr9091607

A Computational Fluid Dynamic Study of Developed Parallel Stations for Primary Fans

2021· article· en· W3197594128 on OpenAlexaff
Juan Pablo Hurtado-Cruz, Gabriel Reyes, Juan Pablo Vargas-Norambuena, Enrique Acuña

Bibliographic record

VenueProcesses · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerodynamics and Fluid Dynamics Research
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
FundersDepartamento de Investigaciones Científicas y Tecnológicas, Universidad de Santiago de ChileUniversidad de Santiago de Chile
KeywordsComputational fluid dynamicsAirflowPrimary energySimulationMarine engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineeringComputer scienceRenewable energyAerospace engineeringElectrical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Computational fluid dynamic (CFD) model was developed considering three geometries for primary parallel fan stations that have already been developed, implemented, and are currently in operation within Chilean mines. To standardize the comparison, the same primary fan was used in all the simulations with a unique set of settings (speed, blade angle, and density). The CFD representation was used to determine the operating point per configuration and compare the performances in terms of airflow and pressure delivered. This approach allowed ranking primary fan station geometry based on resistance curve and energy consumption of the fan. This paper presents the results obtained through the CFD simulations and the corresponding primary fans operating points of each configuration: symmetrical branches (SB), overlap branches (OB), and run around (RA) bypass. The RA configuration was identified as the best-performing station geometry on the lowest frictional and shock pressure losses, highest airflow delivery, and lowest energy cost. The results are discussed, considering pressure, velocity, and vector contours to understand the fluid dynamics phenomena occurring inside the station. The capital cost involved in the development of each primary parallel station was considered in the analysis in addition to the energy cost to determine the economic configuration over time.

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 score0.386
Threshold uncertainty score0.422

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcessesSame topicAerodynamics and Fluid Dynamics ResearchFrench-language works237,207