MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407368875 · doi:10.1063/5.0251597

A neural network approach to improve Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes modeling of bluff body wakes

2025· article· en· W4407368875 on OpenAlexafffund
S. Amir Shojaee, Shubham Goswami, Carlos F. Lange, Arman Hemmati

Bibliographic record

VenueAIP Advances · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBluffReynolds numberReynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equationsMechanicsComputational fluid dynamicsNavier–Stokes equationsWakePhysicsReynolds decompositionArtificial neural networkComputer scienceStatistical physicsTurbulenceReynolds equationArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study explores a machine learning based correction method of Reynolds Averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) k–ω Shear Stress Transport (SST) turbulence model in simulating flow around wall-mounted finite rectangular prisms at a Reynolds number of 2.5 × 103. Comparisons with Large Eddy Simulation (LES) reveal successful prediction of mean flow global features, coherent wake characteristics, and key flow parameters by the RANS k–ω SST model. While accurately capturing shear-layer separation, recirculation, and reattachment phenomena, the k–ω SST model tends to significantly overestimate the reattachment length (XR) and underpredict global flow variables. To address this, a backpropagation multi-layer perceptron artificial neural network algorithm is introduced to correct wake parameters of the k–ω SST model. By utilizing LES data to train the algorithm, predictive accuracy of the wake parameters, including reattachment length, recirculation length, drag coefficient, lift coefficient, and base pressure coefficient, is enhanced by more than 97%. These results demonstrate that the algorithm is effective in improving k–ω SST predictions, offering a cost-effective tool to achieve accuracies comparable to LES. The study contributes to refining RANS k–ω SST simulations, showcasing the potential of machine learning in mitigating limitations and enhancing predictive capabilities of RANS models in simulating complex flow scenarios involving wall-mounted rectangular prisms.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.820
Threshold uncertainty score0.561

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIP AdvancesSame topicFluid Dynamics and Vibration AnalysisFrench-language works237,207