The ERCOFTAC centrifugal pump OpenFOAM case-study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work investigates the rotor-stator interaction features of OpenFOAM-1.5-dev, such as frozen\nrotor and sliding grid. The case studied is the ERCOFTAC Test Case U3: Centrifugal Pump with a\nVaned Diffuser, a testcase from the ERCOFTAC Turbomachinery Special Interest Group. The case\nwas presented by Combès at the ERCOFTAC Seminar and Workshop on Turbomachinery Flow\nPrediction VII, in Aussois, 1999. It is a valid test case for evaluation of rotor-stator interaction\nfeatures, as detailed experimental data is available.\nThe investigation shows that OpenFOAM gives results that are comparable to the experimental data,\nin particular for the sliding grid case. The results are less accurate in the frozen rotor simulation due to\nthe improper treatment of the impeller wakes that is part of the frozen rotor formulation.\nThe ERCOFTAC centrifugal pump OpenFOAM case-study was developed as a contribution to the\nOpenFOAM Turbomachinery Working Group, and was presented and discussed at the Fourth\nOpenFOAM Workshop in Montréal, 2009. The complete set-up of the case-study is available from the\nOpenFOAM-extend project at SourceForge, and instructions and comments are available from the\nOpenFOAM Wiki.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".