MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014081442 · doi:10.2514/6.2004-667

Toward Blade-Tip Vortex Simulation with an Actuator-Lifting Surface Model

2004· article· en· W2014081442 on OpenAlexafffund
Christophe Leclerc, Christian Masson

Bibliographic record

Venue42nd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsBlade (archaeology)VortexActuatorSurface (topology)Aerospace engineeringMechanical engineeringMechanicsMaterials scienceEngineeringAcousticsComputer sciencePhysicsElectrical engineeringGeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a new method based on the imposition of velocity discontinuities to model °ow perturbation due to existence of vortical structures. The proposed method uses actuator disk and lift- ing line concepts in order to provide a framework of analysis that respects conservation laws for mo- mentum, energy and vorticity, which is not the case of classical actuator disk methods used in the wind industry. The °oweld is described by the Euler equations. In the proposed mathematical model, the attitude toward °ow determination is entirely linked to the vorticity structure of the °ow, which is modeled by velocity discontinuities. Results are produced for three basic problems of interest : 2D uniform vorticity distribution, actuator disk with uniform loading andnite wing with prescribed dis- tribution of circulation. These cornerstone prob- lems have shown that numerical method gives fairly precise values regarding °ow streamlines, lift and induced velocities predictions for all problems in- vestigated. Induced drag prediction for thenite wing problem could not be measured since proper grid-independent solution to this problem could not be attained.

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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.831

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations16
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue42nd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and ExhibitSame topicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent FlowsFrench-language works237,207