MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392308787 · doi:10.11159/jffhmt.2024.005

Characterization of the Turbulent Fluid Flow Structures in a Slab Mold with Experimental Measurements and Different Turbulence Models

2024· article· en· W4392308787 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
María Guadalupe González-Solórzano, Saúl García-Hernández, R. D. Morales, Alfonso Nájera‐Bastida, Javier Guarneros

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluid Flow Heat and Mass Transfer · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInnovations in Concrete and Construction Materials
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurbulenceMechanicsK-epsilon turbulence modelFlow (mathematics)SlabCharacterization (materials science)Fluid dynamicsMaterials sciencePhysicsNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The turbulent flow of liquid steel in a slab mold was characterized using a commercial nozzle through physical water-model experiments and four turbulent models: - Realizable (RKE), Detached Eddy Simulation (DES), Scale-Adaptive Simulation (SAS), and Large Eddy Simulation (LES).The comparison between numerical results and the experimental measurements (using Ultrasound Velocimetry) permitted the characterization of flow structures along a sub meniscus region, (of great importance for flux-dragging phenomena) In general, all four models predict characteristic unsteady state turbulent flows.However, the - Realizable and DES models fail to predict instabilities in the internal flow of the nozzle, overpredicting sub-meniscus velocities in the mold.On the other hand, the SAS and LES models manage to predict the instabilities and changes in the internal flows inside the nozzles that occur at high frequencies and achieve an excellent agreement with the experimental velocity profiles.With the analysis of the results obtained, it is possible to say that the SAS model produces performances like those of the LES model with less computing effort and less cost.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.117
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

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 head0.209
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fluid Flow Heat and Mass TransferSame topicInnovations in Concrete and Construction MaterialsFrench-language works237,207