MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293581842 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2021-0159

Assessment of a novel <i>k–ω</i> turbulence model for transonic centrifugal impeller simulations

2022· article· en· W4293581842 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zhiyuan Liu, Peng Wang, Ben Zhao, Ce Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTurbomachinery Performance and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImpellerTurbulenceTransonicCentrifugal compressorMechanicsShroudMach numberOverall pressure ratioPhysicsGas compressorEngineeringThermodynamicsAerodynamicsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Numerical simulation of high pressure ratio transonic centrifugal compressors is challenging for the existing turbulence models. A lagged k–ω model proposed by Olsen and Coakley for nonequilibrium effects was first applied to simulate the transonic centrifugal impeller SRV2-O. As comparative case studies, four other turbulence models ( k–ω model, RNG k–ε model, SST-CC model, and EARSM model) were also computed. The comparison showed that ( i) the selection of the turbulence model had a great influence on SRV2-O impeller simulations; ( ii) the lagged k–ω model had an advantage over other models in terms of overall pressure ratio and internal flow characteristics; and ( iii) the lagged model predicted a smaller blockage area caused by leakage vortex breakdown than other models, closer to the experimental result. The detailed parameter examination indicated that the nonequilibrium parameter a 0 in the lagged model had little influence on the Mach number distribution and choking mass flow rate but a significant influence on the static pressure on the shroud casing. For a higher Mach number compressor, a smaller a 0 is recommended for bettering the simulation accuracy.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score0.471

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.206 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical EngineeringSame topicTurbomachinery Performance and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207