MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1596594135 · doi:10.1109/iciasf.1997.644679

Wall adaptation and determination of residual wall interferences for a 2D and a 3D model in the transonic wind tunnel TWG of DLR

2002· article· en· W1596594135 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
H. Holst, K.-W. Bock

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransonicWind tunnelResidualSubsonic and transonic wind tunnelAerodynamicsSupersonic speedNozzleAerospace engineeringStructural engineeringMechanicsEngineeringComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The transonic wind tunnel TWG of DLR Gottingen has been modernized with respect to an improved flow quality as well as to the logistics of exchangeable test sections, operational reliability and productivity. It is presently equipped with a Laval nozzle (supersonic), a perforated test section (transonic) and a two-dimensional adaptive (subsonic) test section. The latter can perform 2D adaptive tests on wing profiles using the Cauchy integral formula for wall adaptation, as well as 2D wall adaptation for 3D models utilizing the Wedemeyer/Lamarche (VKI) procedure. For both cases the wall adaptation was successful. The 3D force results compare quite well nominally interference-free results and to results from another adaptive test section. The pressure distribution from the wing profile tests agree quite well with theoretical results. For the 3D model, residual wall interferences were determined. It was found that the wall interferences had been reduced to nearly zero on the centreline of the test section by wall adaptation. Spanwise averages of the residual wall interferences have been used for further corrections.

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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.185

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.191 · 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
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

Citations4
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComputational Fluid Dynamics and AerodynamicsFrench-language works237,207