MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366402727 · doi:10.1002/fld.5189

A coupled multigrid solver with wall functions for<scp>three‐dimensional</scp>turbulent flows over urban‐like obstacles

2023· article· en· W4366402727 on OpenAlexaff
Fue‐Sang Lien, Hua Ji, Sydney D. Ryan, Robert C. Ripley, Fan Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Numerical Methods in Fluids · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWind and Air Flow Studies
Canadian institutionsDefence Research and Development CanadaThe Audio Recording AcademyWaterloo CFD Engineering ConsultingUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurbulenceMultigrid methodComputational fluid dynamicsReynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equationsLaminar flowSolverComputer scienceMechanicsApplied mathematicsTurbulence modelingFlow (mathematics)Mathematical optimizationPhysicsMathematicsPartial differential equationMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract One of the objectives for rapid operational tools for urban atmospheric events is fast calculation of the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models for multiphase flows to respond to deliberate or accidental chemical, biological, and radiological (CBR) releases. This article addresses the implementation of a coupled multigrid (CMG) method in an in‐house pressure‐based low‐speed CFD solver called STREAM in detail, including its validation against several 2D/3D benchmark test problems pertinent to urban flows. It was identified that solving the advection–diffusion equation of concentration for the prediction of dispersion of CBR agents is computationally very efficient, provided that the input data of turbulence viscosity and flow fields can be supplied in a timely fashion. Since most pressure‐based solvers adopt the segregated SIMPLE algorithm, and the coupling among different (linearized) equations is established via outer iterations on a single grid, its convergence rate is generally poor, particularly for turbulent flows in urban environments involving massive flow separation. The proposed approach and main contribution here is to adopt CMG to solve turbulent flows over urban‐like obstacles efficiently in 2D and particularly 3D, in which the standard Reynolds‐averaged Navier–Stokes turbulence model in conjunction with wall functions is employed. The results presented in this paper demonstrate a speedup ratio based on work unit (WU) for 3D laminar cavity flows of roughly 100, and 25 for 3D turbulent urban flow, depending on grid sizes.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.381
Threshold uncertainty score0.848

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal for Numerical Methods in FluidsSame topicWind and Air Flow StudiesFrench-language works237,207