MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293115898 · doi:10.11159/htff22.137

Numerical Simulation through Fluent Of a Cold, Swirling Particle Flow in a Combustion Chamber

2022· article· en· W4293115898 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wronski Tomek, Zouaoui-Mahzoul Nabila, Alain Brillard

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the World Congress on Mechanical, Chemical, and Material Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and flame dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCombustorMechanicsTurbulenceAnemometerFluentCombustion chamberCombustionFlow (mathematics)Materials scienceTurbulence modelingViscosityAirflowLarge eddy simulationComputer simulationPhysicsThermodynamicsChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study aims to first model the cold, confined and swirling flow in a magnesium burner. One of the most important features of the experimental burner is the presence of a significant recirculation zone, which is crucial for stabilizing the flame in the combustion chamber, Before modelling the combustion reaction and the flame, a first step is the simulation of the cold monophasic airflow and the accurate simulation of the recirculation zone. To validate the numerical simulations performed with the ANSYS Fluent software, experimental velocity measurements were first made in a 1:1 scale PMMA replica of the experimental burner. A constant temperature hot-wire anemometer was used to determine radial profiles of axial velocity. A low swirl case (S=0.13) was first considered because of its apparent simplicity. Simulation results obtained using different eddy viscosity models were compared to the experimental data and the Standard k- model proved to predict the velocity profiles and the central recirculation zone with the most accuracy. A high swirl case was then studied (S=2.94), corresponding to the conditions occurring in the experimental burner. In this case, the turbulence and its anisotropy appeared to be too strong for the eddy viscosity models previously used, and they failed to provide a converging solution. The RSM model was better suited for the task and could predict the position, size and shape of the central toroidal recirculation zone with acceptable accuracy, although important errors were still observed for the velocity values. Part of the inaccuracies could be explained by the usage of first-order discretization schemes. Higher discretization orders (second or higher order) could not be used in this case due to induced numerical instabilities, which could not be reduced despite several attempts,

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the World Congress on Mechanical, Chemical, and Material EngineeringSame topicCombustion and flame dynamicsFrench-language works237,207