MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7131101879 · doi:10.1115/imece2025-168182

The Development of a 2D CFD Modelling and Optimizing Approach for a Power-Generating Wave Rotor

2025· article· W7131101879 on OpenAlexaff
Rujun Tian, Ghislain Madiot, Colin Copeland

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and Detonation Processes
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputational fluid dynamicsRotor (electric)TurbineRam air turbineInletOscillating Water ColumnPort (circuit theory)Power (physics)Range (aeronautics)Channel (broadcasting)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Wave rotors exchange energy between two flows through pressure waves and have the potential to enhance efficiency in a range of power generation applications. Compared to the traditional turbomachine, wave rotors have the advantage of lower speed, simpler design, lower manufacturing cost, and a more compact design. These advantages are ideally suited to a micro-gas turbine that is based on a power-generating wave rotor. However, to make this concept viable, improvements must be made in the efficiency of power extraction from the flows through the channels. In this paper, a wave rotor has been modeled and optimized in 2D CFD based on an existing wave rotor micro-gas turbine design reported in other work. Parameter and constraints are designed based on a baseline wave rotor of 60 mm in diameter, 30 mm in length with symmetrical channel camber. The wave rotor consists of 4 ports per cycle, two inlets on one side and two outlet ports on the opposite side to create a through-flow design. On the inlet side, a rotor channel will first arrive at the High-Pressure Gas (HPG) followed by the Low-Pressure Air (LPA) port and on the outlet side, first a High-Pressure Air (HPA) port followed by a Low-Pressure Gas (LPG) port. The Fluent model solution uses a pressure-based and allows the exploration of boundary conditions of the pressure-inlets and the pressure-outlets. The main purpose, is to use this model to investigate the port timing, portangle and channel curvature to optimize power generation and cycle efficiency. First, the paper models curve channel designs where experimental results are available in order to validate the model. The model is then used to optimize the aforementioned parameters, and a number of new designs are shown and discussed in terms of their performance tradeoffs.

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)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.472
Threshold uncertainty score0.681

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.210 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCombustion and Detonation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207