MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W767250666

Particle subgrid scale modeling in large-eddy simulation of particle-laden turbulence

2013· dissertation· en· W767250666 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Matthew J. Cernick

Bibliographic record

VenueMacSphere (McMaster University) · 2013
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle Dynamics in Fluid Flows
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsTurbulenceLarge eddy simulationParticle (ecology)Statistical physicsScale (ratio)PhysicsTurbulence modelingMechanicsEnvironmental scienceGeology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis is concerned with particle subgrid scale (SGS) modeling in large-eddy simulation (LES) of particle-laden turbulence. Although most particle-laden LES studies have neglected the effect of the subgrid scales on the particles, several particle SGS models have been proposed in the literature. In this research, the approximate deconvolution method (ADM), and the stochastic models of Fukagata et al. (2004), Shotorban and Mashayek (2006) and Berrouk et al. (2007) are analyzed. The particle SGS models are assessed by conducting both a priori and a posteriori tests of a periodic box of decaying, homogeneous and isotropic turbulence with an initial Reynolds number of Re=74. The model results are compared with particle statistics from a direct numerical simulation (DNS). Particles with a large range of Stokes numbers are tested using various filter sizes and stochastic model constant values. Simulations with and without gravity are performed to evaluate the ability of the models to account for the crossing trajectory and continuity effects. The results show that ADM improves results but is only capable of recovering a portion of the SGS turbulent kinetic energy. Conversely, the stochastic models are able to recover sufficient energy, but show a large range of results dependent on Stokes number and filter size. The stochastic models generally perform best at small Stokes numbers. Due to the random component, the stochastic models are unable to predict preferential concentration.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.197 · 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
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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMacSphere (McMaster University)Same topicParticle Dynamics in Fluid FlowsFrench-language works237,207