MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402347888 · doi:10.1139/cjp-2022-0165

Large eddy simulations of a Francis turbine operating at ultra-low load to overload conditions

2024· article· en· W4402347888 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Muhannad Altimemy, Justin Caspar, Ahmed Jassim Shkarah, Alparslan Öztekin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCavitation Phenomena in Pumps
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsPhysicsTurbineLarge eddy simulationMechanicsAerospace engineeringThermodynamicsTurbulence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the increasing global power demand, hydropower plants face the challenge of operating at flow rates far from their best efficiency point to comply with the electrical grid. Consequently, turbine units experience unstable high swirling flows under different load conditions, reducing the life of system components. Understanding the mechanisms behind the onset and sustenance of these instabilities in the swirling flow leaving the turbine runner is crucial for improving turbine performance. To achieve this, large eddy simulations were conducted to characterize the unsteady flow inside an industrial-sized Francis turbine. The turbine was studied under a wide range of flow rates, 100%, 80%, 60%, 40%, and 120% of the design flow rate. A high swirl velocity was introduced as the flow rate deviated from 100% load, causing significant changes in the flow structure. An organized structure of vortex filaments in a helical pattern is seen inside the draft tube at 80% and 60% load, and the 40% load case showed an unorganized collection of small-scale vortices. A straight vortex cavity is seen in the draft tube center at 120% excess load. At the best design point, the magnitude of the swirl velocity was 0.1 times the tip speed. However, as the flow rate dropped to 40% of the design flow rate, the magnitude increased to 0.4 times the tip speed near the wall. In addition, the 40% load case had the highest magnitude of pressure fluctuations, over 25 times the peak design case near the runner. This showed that a very unsteady flow field could damage the system or cause unstable operation at ultra-low partial loads. Generated power dropped dramatically as the flow rate decreased, and more noise was present in the power signal.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.372
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.223 · 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
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of PhysicsSame topicCavitation Phenomena in PumpsFrench-language works237,207