A strategy for the qualification of multi-fluid approaches for nuclear reactor safety
CFD-simulations for two-phase flows applying the multi-fluid approach are not yet qualified to provide reliable predictions for unknown flows. Among others, one important reason is the missing agreement within the community on closure models to be used. Considering specific phenomena or not, using d...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Lucas, D. [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2016transfer abstract |
|---|
| Umfang: |
10 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Structural and mechanical properties of multi-element (TiVCrZrHf)N coatings by reactive magnetron sputtering - 2011, an international journal devoted to the thermal, mechanical, materials and structural aspects of nuclear fission energy, Amsterdam [u.a.] |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:299 ; year:2016 ; day:1 ; month:04 ; pages:2-11 ; extent:10 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1016/j.nucengdes.2015.07.007 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
ELV024953083 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | ELV024953083 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230625143853.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 180603s2016 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.nucengdes.2015.07.007 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a GBVA2016023000021.pica |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)ELV024953083 | ||
| 035 | |a (ELSEVIER)S0029-5493(15)00277-0 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | |a 620 | |
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 620 |q DE-600 |
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 670 |q VZ |
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 530 |q VZ |
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 660 |q VZ |
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 000 |a 150 |q VZ |
| 084 | |a 54.74 |2 bkl | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Lucas, D. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a A strategy for the qualification of multi-fluid approaches for nuclear reactor safety |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2016transfer abstract | |
| 300 | |a 10 | ||
| 336 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zzz |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b z |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a nicht spezifiziert |b zu |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a CFD-simulations for two-phase flows applying the multi-fluid approach are not yet qualified to provide reliable predictions for unknown flows. Among others, one important reason is the missing agreement within the community on closure models to be used. Considering specific phenomena or not, using different models and adjustable constants, most papers presenting a model validation end up with a good agreement with experimental data. However a case by case selection of models and constants does not help to improve the predictive capabilities of such models. For this reason the definition of baseline models considering all known phenomena that could be important is proposed. In such baseline models all parameter have to be defined, i.e., there are no tuning parameters by definition. Therefore these baseline models have to be applied to many experiments with different complexity. Shortcomings of the models and our physical understanding of the complex flow phenomena have to be identified by detailed analyses on the deviations between experimental data and simulation results. A modification of the baseline model will only be done if it bases on physical considerations and improves the overall performance of the model. This requires a huge effort, but seems to be the only way to improve the situation. In particular more complete experimental data are required. Joint activities on the development of such baseline models are desirable. The paper illustrates this strategy by a baseline model for polydisperse bubbly flows which is presently developed at HZDR. | ||
| 520 | |a CFD-simulations for two-phase flows applying the multi-fluid approach are not yet qualified to provide reliable predictions for unknown flows. Among others, one important reason is the missing agreement within the community on closure models to be used. Considering specific phenomena or not, using different models and adjustable constants, most papers presenting a model validation end up with a good agreement with experimental data. However a case by case selection of models and constants does not help to improve the predictive capabilities of such models. For this reason the definition of baseline models considering all known phenomena that could be important is proposed. In such baseline models all parameter have to be defined, i.e., there are no tuning parameters by definition. Therefore these baseline models have to be applied to many experiments with different complexity. Shortcomings of the models and our physical understanding of the complex flow phenomena have to be identified by detailed analyses on the deviations between experimental data and simulation results. A modification of the baseline model will only be done if it bases on physical considerations and improves the overall performance of the model. This requires a huge effort, but seems to be the only way to improve the situation. In particular more complete experimental data are required. Joint activities on the development of such baseline models are desirable. The paper illustrates this strategy by a baseline model for polydisperse bubbly flows which is presently developed at HZDR. | ||
| 700 | 1 | |a Rzehak, R. |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Krepper, E. |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Ziegenhein, Th. |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Liao, Y. |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Kriebitzsch, S. |4 oth | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Apanasevich, P. |4 oth | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |n Elsevier Science |t Structural and mechanical properties of multi-element (TiVCrZrHf)N coatings by reactive magnetron sputtering |d 2011 |d an international journal devoted to the thermal, mechanical, materials and structural aspects of nuclear fission energy |g Amsterdam [u.a.] |w (DE-627)ELV010711139 |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:299 |g year:2016 |g day:1 |g month:04 |g pages:2-11 |g extent:10 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2015.07.007 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ELV | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_U | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_120 | ||
| 936 | b | k | |a 54.74 |j Maschinelles Sehen |q VZ |
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 299 |j 2016 |b 1 |c 0401 |h 2-11 |g 10 | ||
| 953 | |2 045F |a 620 | ||
| author_variant |
d l dl |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
lucasdrzehakrkreppereziegenheinthliaoykr:2016----:srtgfrhqaiiainfutfudprahson |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2016transfer abstract |
| bklnumber |
54.74 |
| publishDate |
2016 |
| allfields |
10.1016/j.nucengdes.2015.07.007 doi GBVA2016023000021.pica (DE-627)ELV024953083 (ELSEVIER)S0029-5493(15)00277-0 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 620 620 DE-600 670 VZ 530 VZ 660 VZ 000 150 VZ 54.74 bkl Lucas, D. verfasserin aut A strategy for the qualification of multi-fluid approaches for nuclear reactor safety 2016transfer abstract 10 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier CFD-simulations for two-phase flows applying the multi-fluid approach are not yet qualified to provide reliable predictions for unknown flows. Among others, one important reason is the missing agreement within the community on closure models to be used. Considering specific phenomena or not, using different models and adjustable constants, most papers presenting a model validation end up with a good agreement with experimental data. However a case by case selection of models and constants does not help to improve the predictive capabilities of such models. For this reason the definition of baseline models considering all known phenomena that could be important is proposed. In such baseline models all parameter have to be defined, i.e., there are no tuning parameters by definition. Therefore these baseline models have to be applied to many experiments with different complexity. Shortcomings of the models and our physical understanding of the complex flow phenomena have to be identified by detailed analyses on the deviations between experimental data and simulation results. A modification of the baseline model will only be done if it bases on physical considerations and improves the overall performance of the model. This requires a huge effort, but seems to be the only way to improve the situation. In particular more complete experimental data are required. Joint activities on the development of such baseline models are desirable. The paper illustrates this strategy by a baseline model for polydisperse bubbly flows which is presently developed at HZDR. CFD-simulations for two-phase flows applying the multi-fluid approach are not yet qualified to provide reliable predictions for unknown flows. Among others, one important reason is the missing agreement within the community on closure models to be used. Considering specific phenomena or not, using different models and adjustable constants, most papers presenting a model validation end up with a good agreement with experimental data. However a case by case selection of models and constants does not help to improve the predictive capabilities of such models. For this reason the definition of baseline models considering all known phenomena that could be important is proposed. In such baseline models all parameter have to be defined, i.e., there are no tuning parameters by definition. Therefore these baseline models have to be applied to many experiments with different complexity. Shortcomings of the models and our physical understanding of the complex flow phenomena have to be identified by detailed analyses on the deviations between experimental data and simulation results. A modification of the baseline model will only be done if it bases on physical considerations and improves the overall performance of the model. This requires a huge effort, but seems to be the only way to improve the situation. In particular more complete experimental data are required. Joint activities on the development of such baseline models are desirable. The paper illustrates this strategy by a baseline model for polydisperse bubbly flows which is presently developed at HZDR. Rzehak, R. oth Krepper, E. oth Ziegenhein, Th. oth Liao, Y. oth Kriebitzsch, S. oth Apanasevich, P. oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Structural and mechanical properties of multi-element (TiVCrZrHf)N coatings by reactive magnetron sputtering 2011 an international journal devoted to the thermal, mechanical, materials and structural aspects of nuclear fission energy Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV010711139 volume:299 year:2016 day:1 month:04 pages:2-11 extent:10 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2015.07.007 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U GBV_ILN_120 54.74 Maschinelles Sehen VZ AR 299 2016 1 0401 2-11 10 045F 620 |
| spelling |
10.1016/j.nucengdes.2015.07.007 doi GBVA2016023000021.pica (DE-627)ELV024953083 (ELSEVIER)S0029-5493(15)00277-0 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 620 620 DE-600 670 VZ 530 VZ 660 VZ 000 150 VZ 54.74 bkl Lucas, D. verfasserin aut A strategy for the qualification of multi-fluid approaches for nuclear reactor safety 2016transfer abstract 10 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier CFD-simulations for two-phase flows applying the multi-fluid approach are not yet qualified to provide reliable predictions for unknown flows. Among others, one important reason is the missing agreement within the community on closure models to be used. Considering specific phenomena or not, using different models and adjustable constants, most papers presenting a model validation end up with a good agreement with experimental data. However a case by case selection of models and constants does not help to improve the predictive capabilities of such models. For this reason the definition of baseline models considering all known phenomena that could be important is proposed. In such baseline models all parameter have to be defined, i.e., there are no tuning parameters by definition. Therefore these baseline models have to be applied to many experiments with different complexity. Shortcomings of the models and our physical understanding of the complex flow phenomena have to be identified by detailed analyses on the deviations between experimental data and simulation results. A modification of the baseline model will only be done if it bases on physical considerations and improves the overall performance of the model. This requires a huge effort, but seems to be the only way to improve the situation. In particular more complete experimental data are required. Joint activities on the development of such baseline models are desirable. The paper illustrates this strategy by a baseline model for polydisperse bubbly flows which is presently developed at HZDR. CFD-simulations for two-phase flows applying the multi-fluid approach are not yet qualified to provide reliable predictions for unknown flows. Among others, one important reason is the missing agreement within the community on closure models to be used. Considering specific phenomena or not, using different models and adjustable constants, most papers presenting a model validation end up with a good agreement with experimental data. However a case by case selection of models and constants does not help to improve the predictive capabilities of such models. For this reason the definition of baseline models considering all known phenomena that could be important is proposed. In such baseline models all parameter have to be defined, i.e., there are no tuning parameters by definition. Therefore these baseline models have to be applied to many experiments with different complexity. Shortcomings of the models and our physical understanding of the complex flow phenomena have to be identified by detailed analyses on the deviations between experimental data and simulation results. A modification of the baseline model will only be done if it bases on physical considerations and improves the overall performance of the model. This requires a huge effort, but seems to be the only way to improve the situation. In particular more complete experimental data are required. Joint activities on the development of such baseline models are desirable. The paper illustrates this strategy by a baseline model for polydisperse bubbly flows which is presently developed at HZDR. Rzehak, R. oth Krepper, E. oth Ziegenhein, Th. oth Liao, Y. oth Kriebitzsch, S. oth Apanasevich, P. oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Structural and mechanical properties of multi-element (TiVCrZrHf)N coatings by reactive magnetron sputtering 2011 an international journal devoted to the thermal, mechanical, materials and structural aspects of nuclear fission energy Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV010711139 volume:299 year:2016 day:1 month:04 pages:2-11 extent:10 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2015.07.007 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U GBV_ILN_120 54.74 Maschinelles Sehen VZ AR 299 2016 1 0401 2-11 10 045F 620 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1016/j.nucengdes.2015.07.007 doi GBVA2016023000021.pica (DE-627)ELV024953083 (ELSEVIER)S0029-5493(15)00277-0 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 620 620 DE-600 670 VZ 530 VZ 660 VZ 000 150 VZ 54.74 bkl Lucas, D. verfasserin aut A strategy for the qualification of multi-fluid approaches for nuclear reactor safety 2016transfer abstract 10 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier CFD-simulations for two-phase flows applying the multi-fluid approach are not yet qualified to provide reliable predictions for unknown flows. Among others, one important reason is the missing agreement within the community on closure models to be used. Considering specific phenomena or not, using different models and adjustable constants, most papers presenting a model validation end up with a good agreement with experimental data. However a case by case selection of models and constants does not help to improve the predictive capabilities of such models. For this reason the definition of baseline models considering all known phenomena that could be important is proposed. In such baseline models all parameter have to be defined, i.e., there are no tuning parameters by definition. Therefore these baseline models have to be applied to many experiments with different complexity. Shortcomings of the models and our physical understanding of the complex flow phenomena have to be identified by detailed analyses on the deviations between experimental data and simulation results. A modification of the baseline model will only be done if it bases on physical considerations and improves the overall performance of the model. This requires a huge effort, but seems to be the only way to improve the situation. In particular more complete experimental data are required. Joint activities on the development of such baseline models are desirable. The paper illustrates this strategy by a baseline model for polydisperse bubbly flows which is presently developed at HZDR. CFD-simulations for two-phase flows applying the multi-fluid approach are not yet qualified to provide reliable predictions for unknown flows. Among others, one important reason is the missing agreement within the community on closure models to be used. Considering specific phenomena or not, using different models and adjustable constants, most papers presenting a model validation end up with a good agreement with experimental data. However a case by case selection of models and constants does not help to improve the predictive capabilities of such models. For this reason the definition of baseline models considering all known phenomena that could be important is proposed. In such baseline models all parameter have to be defined, i.e., there are no tuning parameters by definition. Therefore these baseline models have to be applied to many experiments with different complexity. Shortcomings of the models and our physical understanding of the complex flow phenomena have to be identified by detailed analyses on the deviations between experimental data and simulation results. A modification of the baseline model will only be done if it bases on physical considerations and improves the overall performance of the model. This requires a huge effort, but seems to be the only way to improve the situation. In particular more complete experimental data are required. Joint activities on the development of such baseline models are desirable. The paper illustrates this strategy by a baseline model for polydisperse bubbly flows which is presently developed at HZDR. Rzehak, R. oth Krepper, E. oth Ziegenhein, Th. oth Liao, Y. oth Kriebitzsch, S. oth Apanasevich, P. oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Structural and mechanical properties of multi-element (TiVCrZrHf)N coatings by reactive magnetron sputtering 2011 an international journal devoted to the thermal, mechanical, materials and structural aspects of nuclear fission energy Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV010711139 volume:299 year:2016 day:1 month:04 pages:2-11 extent:10 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2015.07.007 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U GBV_ILN_120 54.74 Maschinelles Sehen VZ AR 299 2016 1 0401 2-11 10 045F 620 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1016/j.nucengdes.2015.07.007 doi GBVA2016023000021.pica (DE-627)ELV024953083 (ELSEVIER)S0029-5493(15)00277-0 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 620 620 DE-600 670 VZ 530 VZ 660 VZ 000 150 VZ 54.74 bkl Lucas, D. verfasserin aut A strategy for the qualification of multi-fluid approaches for nuclear reactor safety 2016transfer abstract 10 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier CFD-simulations for two-phase flows applying the multi-fluid approach are not yet qualified to provide reliable predictions for unknown flows. Among others, one important reason is the missing agreement within the community on closure models to be used. Considering specific phenomena or not, using different models and adjustable constants, most papers presenting a model validation end up with a good agreement with experimental data. However a case by case selection of models and constants does not help to improve the predictive capabilities of such models. For this reason the definition of baseline models considering all known phenomena that could be important is proposed. In such baseline models all parameter have to be defined, i.e., there are no tuning parameters by definition. Therefore these baseline models have to be applied to many experiments with different complexity. Shortcomings of the models and our physical understanding of the complex flow phenomena have to be identified by detailed analyses on the deviations between experimental data and simulation results. A modification of the baseline model will only be done if it bases on physical considerations and improves the overall performance of the model. This requires a huge effort, but seems to be the only way to improve the situation. In particular more complete experimental data are required. Joint activities on the development of such baseline models are desirable. The paper illustrates this strategy by a baseline model for polydisperse bubbly flows which is presently developed at HZDR. CFD-simulations for two-phase flows applying the multi-fluid approach are not yet qualified to provide reliable predictions for unknown flows. Among others, one important reason is the missing agreement within the community on closure models to be used. Considering specific phenomena or not, using different models and adjustable constants, most papers presenting a model validation end up with a good agreement with experimental data. However a case by case selection of models and constants does not help to improve the predictive capabilities of such models. For this reason the definition of baseline models considering all known phenomena that could be important is proposed. In such baseline models all parameter have to be defined, i.e., there are no tuning parameters by definition. Therefore these baseline models have to be applied to many experiments with different complexity. Shortcomings of the models and our physical understanding of the complex flow phenomena have to be identified by detailed analyses on the deviations between experimental data and simulation results. A modification of the baseline model will only be done if it bases on physical considerations and improves the overall performance of the model. This requires a huge effort, but seems to be the only way to improve the situation. In particular more complete experimental data are required. Joint activities on the development of such baseline models are desirable. The paper illustrates this strategy by a baseline model for polydisperse bubbly flows which is presently developed at HZDR. Rzehak, R. oth Krepper, E. oth Ziegenhein, Th. oth Liao, Y. oth Kriebitzsch, S. oth Apanasevich, P. oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Structural and mechanical properties of multi-element (TiVCrZrHf)N coatings by reactive magnetron sputtering 2011 an international journal devoted to the thermal, mechanical, materials and structural aspects of nuclear fission energy Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV010711139 volume:299 year:2016 day:1 month:04 pages:2-11 extent:10 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2015.07.007 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U GBV_ILN_120 54.74 Maschinelles Sehen VZ AR 299 2016 1 0401 2-11 10 045F 620 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1016/j.nucengdes.2015.07.007 doi GBVA2016023000021.pica (DE-627)ELV024953083 (ELSEVIER)S0029-5493(15)00277-0 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 620 620 DE-600 670 VZ 530 VZ 660 VZ 000 150 VZ 54.74 bkl Lucas, D. verfasserin aut A strategy for the qualification of multi-fluid approaches for nuclear reactor safety 2016transfer abstract 10 nicht spezifiziert zzz rdacontent nicht spezifiziert z rdamedia nicht spezifiziert zu rdacarrier CFD-simulations for two-phase flows applying the multi-fluid approach are not yet qualified to provide reliable predictions for unknown flows. Among others, one important reason is the missing agreement within the community on closure models to be used. Considering specific phenomena or not, using different models and adjustable constants, most papers presenting a model validation end up with a good agreement with experimental data. However a case by case selection of models and constants does not help to improve the predictive capabilities of such models. For this reason the definition of baseline models considering all known phenomena that could be important is proposed. In such baseline models all parameter have to be defined, i.e., there are no tuning parameters by definition. Therefore these baseline models have to be applied to many experiments with different complexity. Shortcomings of the models and our physical understanding of the complex flow phenomena have to be identified by detailed analyses on the deviations between experimental data and simulation results. A modification of the baseline model will only be done if it bases on physical considerations and improves the overall performance of the model. This requires a huge effort, but seems to be the only way to improve the situation. In particular more complete experimental data are required. Joint activities on the development of such baseline models are desirable. The paper illustrates this strategy by a baseline model for polydisperse bubbly flows which is presently developed at HZDR. CFD-simulations for two-phase flows applying the multi-fluid approach are not yet qualified to provide reliable predictions for unknown flows. Among others, one important reason is the missing agreement within the community on closure models to be used. Considering specific phenomena or not, using different models and adjustable constants, most papers presenting a model validation end up with a good agreement with experimental data. However a case by case selection of models and constants does not help to improve the predictive capabilities of such models. For this reason the definition of baseline models considering all known phenomena that could be important is proposed. In such baseline models all parameter have to be defined, i.e., there are no tuning parameters by definition. Therefore these baseline models have to be applied to many experiments with different complexity. Shortcomings of the models and our physical understanding of the complex flow phenomena have to be identified by detailed analyses on the deviations between experimental data and simulation results. A modification of the baseline model will only be done if it bases on physical considerations and improves the overall performance of the model. This requires a huge effort, but seems to be the only way to improve the situation. In particular more complete experimental data are required. Joint activities on the development of such baseline models are desirable. The paper illustrates this strategy by a baseline model for polydisperse bubbly flows which is presently developed at HZDR. Rzehak, R. oth Krepper, E. oth Ziegenhein, Th. oth Liao, Y. oth Kriebitzsch, S. oth Apanasevich, P. oth Enthalten in Elsevier Science Structural and mechanical properties of multi-element (TiVCrZrHf)N coatings by reactive magnetron sputtering 2011 an international journal devoted to the thermal, mechanical, materials and structural aspects of nuclear fission energy Amsterdam [u.a.] (DE-627)ELV010711139 volume:299 year:2016 day:1 month:04 pages:2-11 extent:10 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2015.07.007 Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U GBV_ILN_120 54.74 Maschinelles Sehen VZ AR 299 2016 1 0401 2-11 10 045F 620 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Structural and mechanical properties of multi-element (TiVCrZrHf)N coatings by reactive magnetron sputtering Amsterdam [u.a.] volume:299 year:2016 day:1 month:04 pages:2-11 extent:10 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Structural and mechanical properties of multi-element (TiVCrZrHf)N coatings by reactive magnetron sputtering Amsterdam [u.a.] volume:299 year:2016 day:1 month:04 pages:2-11 extent:10 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| bklname |
Maschinelles Sehen |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| dewey-raw |
620 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Structural and mechanical properties of multi-element (TiVCrZrHf)N coatings by reactive magnetron sputtering |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Lucas, D. @@aut@@ Rzehak, R. @@oth@@ Krepper, E. @@oth@@ Ziegenhein, Th. @@oth@@ Liao, Y. @@oth@@ Kriebitzsch, S. @@oth@@ Apanasevich, P. @@oth@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2016-01-01T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
ELV010711139 |
| dewey-sort |
3620 |
| id |
ELV024953083 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV024953083</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230625143853.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">180603s2016 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.nucengdes.2015.07.007</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">GBVA2016023000021.pica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV024953083</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0029-5493(15)00277-0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">620</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">620</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-600</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">670</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">530</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">660</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">000</subfield><subfield code="a">150</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">54.74</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lucas, D.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">A strategy for the qualification of multi-fluid approaches for nuclear reactor safety</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2016transfer abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">CFD-simulations for two-phase flows applying the multi-fluid approach are not yet qualified to provide reliable predictions for unknown flows. Among others, one important reason is the missing agreement within the community on closure models to be used. Considering specific phenomena or not, using different models and adjustable constants, most papers presenting a model validation end up with a good agreement with experimental data. However a case by case selection of models and constants does not help to improve the predictive capabilities of such models. For this reason the definition of baseline models considering all known phenomena that could be important is proposed. In such baseline models all parameter have to be defined, i.e., there are no tuning parameters by definition. Therefore these baseline models have to be applied to many experiments with different complexity. Shortcomings of the models and our physical understanding of the complex flow phenomena have to be identified by detailed analyses on the deviations between experimental data and simulation results. A modification of the baseline model will only be done if it bases on physical considerations and improves the overall performance of the model. This requires a huge effort, but seems to be the only way to improve the situation. In particular more complete experimental data are required. Joint activities on the development of such baseline models are desirable. The paper illustrates this strategy by a baseline model for polydisperse bubbly flows which is presently developed at HZDR.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">CFD-simulations for two-phase flows applying the multi-fluid approach are not yet qualified to provide reliable predictions for unknown flows. Among others, one important reason is the missing agreement within the community on closure models to be used. Considering specific phenomena or not, using different models and adjustable constants, most papers presenting a model validation end up with a good agreement with experimental data. However a case by case selection of models and constants does not help to improve the predictive capabilities of such models. For this reason the definition of baseline models considering all known phenomena that could be important is proposed. In such baseline models all parameter have to be defined, i.e., there are no tuning parameters by definition. Therefore these baseline models have to be applied to many experiments with different complexity. Shortcomings of the models and our physical understanding of the complex flow phenomena have to be identified by detailed analyses on the deviations between experimental data and simulation results. A modification of the baseline model will only be done if it bases on physical considerations and improves the overall performance of the model. This requires a huge effort, but seems to be the only way to improve the situation. In particular more complete experimental data are required. Joint activities on the development of such baseline models are desirable. The paper illustrates this strategy by a baseline model for polydisperse bubbly flows which is presently developed at HZDR.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rzehak, R.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Krepper, E.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ziegenhein, Th.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Liao, Y.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kriebitzsch, S.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Apanasevich, P.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="n">Elsevier Science</subfield><subfield code="t">Structural and mechanical properties of multi-element (TiVCrZrHf)N coatings by reactive magnetron sputtering</subfield><subfield code="d">2011</subfield><subfield code="d">an international journal devoted to the thermal, mechanical, materials and structural aspects of nuclear fission energy</subfield><subfield code="g">Amsterdam [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)ELV010711139</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:299</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2016</subfield><subfield code="g">day:1</subfield><subfield code="g">month:04</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:2-11</subfield><subfield code="g">extent:10</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2015.07.007</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_120</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">54.74</subfield><subfield code="j">Maschinelles Sehen</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">299</subfield><subfield code="j">2016</subfield><subfield code="b">1</subfield><subfield code="c">0401</subfield><subfield code="h">2-11</subfield><subfield code="g">10</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="953" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="2">045F</subfield><subfield code="a">620</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Lucas, D. |
| spellingShingle |
Lucas, D. ddc 620 ddc 670 ddc 530 ddc 660 ddc 000 bkl 54.74 A strategy for the qualification of multi-fluid approaches for nuclear reactor safety |
| authorStr |
Lucas, D. |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)ELV010711139 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| dewey-ones |
620 - Engineering & allied operations 670 - Manufacturing 530 - Physics 660 - Chemical engineering 000 - Computer science, information & general works 150 - Psychology |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut |
| collection |
elsevier |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| topic_title |
620 620 DE-600 670 VZ 530 VZ 660 VZ 000 150 VZ 54.74 bkl A strategy for the qualification of multi-fluid approaches for nuclear reactor safety |
| topic |
ddc 620 ddc 670 ddc 530 ddc 660 ddc 000 bkl 54.74 |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 620 ddc 670 ddc 530 ddc 660 ddc 000 bkl 54.74 |
| topic_browse |
ddc 620 ddc 670 ddc 530 ddc 660 ddc 000 bkl 54.74 |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
zu |
| author2_variant |
r r rr e k ek t z tz y l yl s k sk p a pa |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Structural and mechanical properties of multi-element (TiVCrZrHf)N coatings by reactive magnetron sputtering |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
ELV010711139 |
| dewey-tens |
620 - Engineering 670 - Manufacturing 530 - Physics 660 - Chemical engineering 000 - Computer science, knowledge & systems 150 - Psychology |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Structural and mechanical properties of multi-element (TiVCrZrHf)N coatings by reactive magnetron sputtering |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)ELV010711139 |
| title |
A strategy for the qualification of multi-fluid approaches for nuclear reactor safety |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)ELV024953083 (ELSEVIER)S0029-5493(15)00277-0 |
| title_full |
A strategy for the qualification of multi-fluid approaches for nuclear reactor safety |
| author_sort |
Lucas, D. |
| journal |
Structural and mechanical properties of multi-element (TiVCrZrHf)N coatings by reactive magnetron sputtering |
| journalStr |
Structural and mechanical properties of multi-element (TiVCrZrHf)N coatings by reactive magnetron sputtering |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
600 - Technology 500 - Science 000 - Computer science, information & general works 100 - Philosophy & psychology |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2016 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
zzz |
| container_start_page |
2 |
| author_browse |
Lucas, D. |
| container_volume |
299 |
| physical |
10 |
| class |
620 620 DE-600 670 VZ 530 VZ 660 VZ 000 150 VZ 54.74 bkl |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Lucas, D. |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1016/j.nucengdes.2015.07.007 |
| dewey-full |
620 670 530 660 000 150 |
| title_sort |
a strategy for the qualification of multi-fluid approaches for nuclear reactor safety |
| title_auth |
A strategy for the qualification of multi-fluid approaches for nuclear reactor safety |
| abstract |
CFD-simulations for two-phase flows applying the multi-fluid approach are not yet qualified to provide reliable predictions for unknown flows. Among others, one important reason is the missing agreement within the community on closure models to be used. Considering specific phenomena or not, using different models and adjustable constants, most papers presenting a model validation end up with a good agreement with experimental data. However a case by case selection of models and constants does not help to improve the predictive capabilities of such models. For this reason the definition of baseline models considering all known phenomena that could be important is proposed. In such baseline models all parameter have to be defined, i.e., there are no tuning parameters by definition. Therefore these baseline models have to be applied to many experiments with different complexity. Shortcomings of the models and our physical understanding of the complex flow phenomena have to be identified by detailed analyses on the deviations between experimental data and simulation results. A modification of the baseline model will only be done if it bases on physical considerations and improves the overall performance of the model. This requires a huge effort, but seems to be the only way to improve the situation. In particular more complete experimental data are required. Joint activities on the development of such baseline models are desirable. The paper illustrates this strategy by a baseline model for polydisperse bubbly flows which is presently developed at HZDR. |
| abstractGer |
CFD-simulations for two-phase flows applying the multi-fluid approach are not yet qualified to provide reliable predictions for unknown flows. Among others, one important reason is the missing agreement within the community on closure models to be used. Considering specific phenomena or not, using different models and adjustable constants, most papers presenting a model validation end up with a good agreement with experimental data. However a case by case selection of models and constants does not help to improve the predictive capabilities of such models. For this reason the definition of baseline models considering all known phenomena that could be important is proposed. In such baseline models all parameter have to be defined, i.e., there are no tuning parameters by definition. Therefore these baseline models have to be applied to many experiments with different complexity. Shortcomings of the models and our physical understanding of the complex flow phenomena have to be identified by detailed analyses on the deviations between experimental data and simulation results. A modification of the baseline model will only be done if it bases on physical considerations and improves the overall performance of the model. This requires a huge effort, but seems to be the only way to improve the situation. In particular more complete experimental data are required. Joint activities on the development of such baseline models are desirable. The paper illustrates this strategy by a baseline model for polydisperse bubbly flows which is presently developed at HZDR. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
CFD-simulations for two-phase flows applying the multi-fluid approach are not yet qualified to provide reliable predictions for unknown flows. Among others, one important reason is the missing agreement within the community on closure models to be used. Considering specific phenomena or not, using different models and adjustable constants, most papers presenting a model validation end up with a good agreement with experimental data. However a case by case selection of models and constants does not help to improve the predictive capabilities of such models. For this reason the definition of baseline models considering all known phenomena that could be important is proposed. In such baseline models all parameter have to be defined, i.e., there are no tuning parameters by definition. Therefore these baseline models have to be applied to many experiments with different complexity. Shortcomings of the models and our physical understanding of the complex flow phenomena have to be identified by detailed analyses on the deviations between experimental data and simulation results. A modification of the baseline model will only be done if it bases on physical considerations and improves the overall performance of the model. This requires a huge effort, but seems to be the only way to improve the situation. In particular more complete experimental data are required. Joint activities on the development of such baseline models are desirable. The paper illustrates this strategy by a baseline model for polydisperse bubbly flows which is presently developed at HZDR. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_U GBV_ELV SYSFLAG_U GBV_ILN_120 |
| title_short |
A strategy for the qualification of multi-fluid approaches for nuclear reactor safety |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2015.07.007 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Rzehak, R. Krepper, E. Ziegenhein, Th Liao, Y. Kriebitzsch, S. Apanasevich, P. |
| author2Str |
Rzehak, R. Krepper, E. Ziegenhein, Th Liao, Y. Kriebitzsch, S. Apanasevich, P. |
| ppnlink |
ELV010711139 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
z |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| author2_role |
oth oth oth oth oth oth |
| doi_str |
10.1016/j.nucengdes.2015.07.007 |
| up_date |
2024-07-06T22:48:29.627Z |
| _version_ |
1803871699209289728 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">ELV024953083</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230625143853.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">180603s2016 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1016/j.nucengdes.2015.07.007</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="028" ind1="5" ind2="2"><subfield code="a">GBVA2016023000021.pica</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)ELV024953083</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(ELSEVIER)S0029-5493(15)00277-0</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">620</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">620</subfield><subfield code="q">DE-600</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">670</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">530</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">660</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">000</subfield><subfield code="a">150</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">54.74</subfield><subfield code="2">bkl</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lucas, D.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">A strategy for the qualification of multi-fluid approaches for nuclear reactor safety</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2016transfer abstract</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="300" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zzz</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">z</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">nicht spezifiziert</subfield><subfield code="b">zu</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">CFD-simulations for two-phase flows applying the multi-fluid approach are not yet qualified to provide reliable predictions for unknown flows. Among others, one important reason is the missing agreement within the community on closure models to be used. Considering specific phenomena or not, using different models and adjustable constants, most papers presenting a model validation end up with a good agreement with experimental data. However a case by case selection of models and constants does not help to improve the predictive capabilities of such models. For this reason the definition of baseline models considering all known phenomena that could be important is proposed. In such baseline models all parameter have to be defined, i.e., there are no tuning parameters by definition. Therefore these baseline models have to be applied to many experiments with different complexity. Shortcomings of the models and our physical understanding of the complex flow phenomena have to be identified by detailed analyses on the deviations between experimental data and simulation results. A modification of the baseline model will only be done if it bases on physical considerations and improves the overall performance of the model. This requires a huge effort, but seems to be the only way to improve the situation. In particular more complete experimental data are required. Joint activities on the development of such baseline models are desirable. The paper illustrates this strategy by a baseline model for polydisperse bubbly flows which is presently developed at HZDR.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">CFD-simulations for two-phase flows applying the multi-fluid approach are not yet qualified to provide reliable predictions for unknown flows. Among others, one important reason is the missing agreement within the community on closure models to be used. Considering specific phenomena or not, using different models and adjustable constants, most papers presenting a model validation end up with a good agreement with experimental data. However a case by case selection of models and constants does not help to improve the predictive capabilities of such models. For this reason the definition of baseline models considering all known phenomena that could be important is proposed. In such baseline models all parameter have to be defined, i.e., there are no tuning parameters by definition. Therefore these baseline models have to be applied to many experiments with different complexity. Shortcomings of the models and our physical understanding of the complex flow phenomena have to be identified by detailed analyses on the deviations between experimental data and simulation results. A modification of the baseline model will only be done if it bases on physical considerations and improves the overall performance of the model. This requires a huge effort, but seems to be the only way to improve the situation. In particular more complete experimental data are required. Joint activities on the development of such baseline models are desirable. The paper illustrates this strategy by a baseline model for polydisperse bubbly flows which is presently developed at HZDR.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rzehak, R.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Krepper, E.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ziegenhein, Th.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Liao, Y.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Kriebitzsch, S.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Apanasevich, P.</subfield><subfield code="4">oth</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="n">Elsevier Science</subfield><subfield code="t">Structural and mechanical properties of multi-element (TiVCrZrHf)N coatings by reactive magnetron sputtering</subfield><subfield code="d">2011</subfield><subfield code="d">an international journal devoted to the thermal, mechanical, materials and structural aspects of nuclear fission energy</subfield><subfield code="g">Amsterdam [u.a.]</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)ELV010711139</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:299</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2016</subfield><subfield code="g">day:1</subfield><subfield code="g">month:04</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:2-11</subfield><subfield code="g">extent:10</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2015.07.007</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ELV</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_U</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_120</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="936" ind1="b" ind2="k"><subfield code="a">54.74</subfield><subfield code="j">Maschinelles Sehen</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">299</subfield><subfield code="j">2016</subfield><subfield code="b">1</subfield><subfield code="c">0401</subfield><subfield code="h">2-11</subfield><subfield code="g">10</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="953" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="2">045F</subfield><subfield code="a">620</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.4014063 |