MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7043306826

Simulations and validation of an axial-flow pit turbine

2019· dissertation· en· W7043306826 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueQSpace (Queen's University Library) · 2019
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's University
KeywordsNucleofectionWindageArticular cartilage damageGestational periodFusible alloyTSG101
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The geometric design of an axial-flow pit-turbine is essential as flow separation will decrease turbine efficiency. In this thesis, steady Reynolds Averaged Navier Stokes (RANS) simulations were conducted with a two-equation closure model and validated with experimental results. The research focuses on evaluating the performance of a k-omega Shear Stress Transport (SST) turbulence model with wall functions in separated flows. RANS simulations were carried out in OpenFOAM using an unstructured grid for both lab and full-scale models of the pit-turbine. By testing a lab-scale model, Particle Image Velocimetry (PIV) was performed to provide insights into the flow behaviour in regions of separation. It was observed that the pressure results from the lab and full-scale RANS models were in agreement with experimental data except in regions of an adverse pressure gradient. The k-omega SST model is sensitive to wall-functions and therefore flow properties near the wall are incorrectly calculated in regions of flow separation. At sharp streamline curvatures, the pressure drop is overpredicted for both the lab and full-scale models. However, at very large Reynolds numbers for the full-scale turbine, the turbulence model underpredicts and delays flow separation at a larger radius of curvature when compared to experiments.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQSpace (Queen's University Library)→Same topicSpecies Distribution and Climate Change→French-language works237,207→