MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1553992993 · doi:10.4271/2007-01-3309

Ice Accretion Prediction on Helicopter Rotor Blade in Hover Flight

2007· article· en· W1553992993 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Giorgio Zanazzi, Giuseppe Mingione, Antonio Pagano, Antonio Visingardi, Robert Narducci

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIcing and De-icing Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyAeronauticsRotor (electric)Aerospace engineeringMeteorologyEngineeringPhysicsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<div class="htmlview paragraph">In the present work, numerical results of ice accretion prediction on the UH-1H helicopter rotor blade with a NACA 0012 airfoil are reported. During the winter of 1982-83, the NASA Lewis Research Center and the US Army conducted a helicopter icing flight test (HIFT) program using a UH-1H aircraft at the Canadian National Research Council spray rig at Uplands Airport, Ottawa, Canada. From several hover icing flight conditions conducted in the HIFT program, a test case is selected to be evaluated with numerical analysis. The computation is performed at an airspeed of 4.6 m/s, ambient temperature of -19.0°C, liquid water content of 0.7 g/m<sup>3</sup> and an exposure time of 3 minutes. In order to reproduce the experimental aerodynamic conditions the three-dimensional flow field is numerically computed. Both a two-dimensional and three-dimensional approach is followed to predict the ice shape. In the first phase, two different ice accretion codes are used: the NASA Glenn LEWICE with a Reynolds-averaged Navier Stokes (RANS) solver and the MULTI-ICE code, developed by CIRA. The approach of these solvers to carry out the simulation is similar. The ice accretion simulation is performed by calculating the two-dimensional aerodynamic conditions, the impingement region and the final iced shape for several sections along the span of the rotor, extrapolating the operating conditions from the three-dimensional flow field with a step-by-step technique until the total exposure time is reached. In the second phase, a direct three-dimensional ice accretion computation is carried out using a code developed by CIRA. Comparisons with experimental data are shown.</div>

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.964
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.220 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations8
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper seriesSame topicIcing and De-icing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207