Deep Learning-Based Prediction of Unsteady Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes Solutions for Vertical-Axis Turbines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The following study investigates the effectiveness of a deep learning-based method for predicting the flow field and flow-driven rotation of a vertical-axis hydrokinetic turbine operating in previously unseen free-stream velocities. A Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) is trained and tested using the solutions of five two-dimensional (2-D), foil-resolved Unsteady Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (URANS) simulations, with free-stream velocities of 1.0, 1.5, 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0 m/s. Based on the boundary conditions of free-stream velocity and rotor position, the flow fields of x-velocity, y-velocity, pressure, and turbulent viscosity are inferred, in addition to the angular velocity of the rotor. Three trained CNN models are developed to evaluate the effects of (1) the dimensions of the training data, and (2) the number of simulations used as training cases. Reducing data dimensions was found to diminish mean relative error in predictions of velocity and turbulent viscosity, while increasing it in predictions of pressure and angular velocity. Increasing the number of training cases from two to three was found to reduce relative error for all predicted unknowns. With the best achieved CNN model, the variables of x-velocity, y-velocity, pressure, turbulent viscosity, and angular velocity were inferred with mean relative errors of 6.93%, 9.82%, 10.7%, 7.48%, and 0.817%, respectively.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".