MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321208400 · doi:10.1615/atomizspr.2023041220

VALIDATION OF A STOCHASTIC BREAKUP MODEL FOR TURBULENT JETS IN HIGH-SPEED CROSSFLOW: ASSESSMENT OF TURBULENT INTERACTIONS AND SENSITIVITY TO BOUNDARY CONDITIONS

2023· article· en· W4321208400 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAtomization and Sprays · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and flame dynamics
Canadian institutionsSiemens (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurbulenceMechanicsReynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equationsBreakupLarge eddy simulationSauter mean diameterTurbulence modelingPhysicsNozzleThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Improving the mixing of fuel and air by injecting a turbulent liquid fuel jet into a high-speed cross-flowing gas can reduce the emissions of gas turbine applications. To facilitate and hasten the development of such low-emissions technologies, accurate predictions of the spray characteristics are needed. The objective of the present study is to validate the predictive capabilities of a stochastic breakup model for turbulent transverse jets over a wide range of representative pressures and atomization characteristics. The effect of turbulence modeling is also assessed to provide accurate and computationally less expensive Eulerian-Lagrangian transient approaches. To do so, the predictions made with the large eddy simulation (LES) approach for different subgrid-scale (SGS) models and with the synthetic eddy method (SEM) are compared to the ones made using the unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) approach with and without a turbulent dispersion model. The sensitivity of the numerical methodology to the upstream velocity profile, pressure, and momentum flux ratio were also assessed. Properly accounting for the upstream gas velocity profile was found to be critical to ensure accurate predictions of the spray characteristics. The unsteady RANS (URANS) turbulent approach coupled with the turbulent dispersion model showed good agreement with experimental data, but the LES approach tends to overpredict the spray penetration and underpredict the Sauter mean diameter (SMD). This could be due to the lower turbulent interactions it predicts, which may lead to lower momentum transfer between the phases.

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.

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 score0.412
Threshold uncertainty score0.381

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 head0.284
Teacher spread0.270 · 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