MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015121923 · doi:10.1115/fedsm2006-98042

IceCube CFD Drilling Model

2006· article· en· W2015121923 on OpenAlexaff
Richard A. Martin, T.S. Thompson, Naseem Ansari, Chokri Guetari

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSpacecraft and Cryogenic Technologies
Canadian institutionsHyteon (Canada)
FundersLos Alamos National Laboratory
KeywordsDrillComputational fluid dynamicsNozzleTurbulenceHeat transferDrillingDragMechanicsMechanical engineeringMarine engineeringPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A numerical model of a hot water drill used to produce deep holes in clear ice at the South Pole for the IceCube neutrino observatory program scheduled for completion in 2010 has been developed. The model was built using the ANSYS commercial computational fluid dynamics (CFD) code, ANSYS CFX. This drill model is helping us to understand the water/ice melting process near the bottom of the drill hole, and to evaluate the influence of nozzle size, spray angle, water flow rate, and water temperature on the drill hole shape, and on drilling speed. The basis for the model is ANSYS CFX, which has multi-phase, conjugate heat transfer capabilities. The model utilizes a multi-phase approach, and simulates motion of the drill with respect to the ice. The sensitivity of model predictions to mesh resolution, turbulence model, and interfacial heat transfer coefficients, area, and drag coefficient was studied, and the results were used to determine preferred values in each case. This multi-phase model was selected after evaluating an equilibrium model and obtaining results showing not completely satisfactory comparisons to experimental data from the South Pole. Computations at a drill depth of 1292 m allowed validation of code results using actual field data obtained during the 2004–2005 IceCube drilling season at Antarctica. A series of steady-state runs using two drill sizes, two drill speeds, and one spray angle were performed for conditions at 1292 m to determine if a smaller nozzle orifice would enable faster drilling, preferably by a factor of two. The model predicted a drill hole diameter of from 18 in to 25 in and an up-flow water temperature of from 20°C to 28°C. The drill hole diameter is consistent with values measured at the IceCube site, but the water temperature is about 10°C low. No evidence of the nozzle tip impacting the bottom of the hole was found in the drill speed range 3.5 ft/min to 7 ft/min. A nozzle spray angle of 25 degrees was found to make little difference in hole depth or diameter. Reducing the nozzle diameter from 1 in to 0.75 in at the same water volumetric flow rate resulted in an increase in the drill hole depth by from 16% to 20%. The latter result implies that faster drilling is expected when using a smaller size orifice with zero degree spray angle. The IceCube drill model is now available to determine the effects of key variables, to evaluate the performance of new nozzle designs, and to specify drill speed versus depth. Recommendations specific to faster drilling speeds resulted in a near doubling of actual speed during the 2005–2006 season at the South Pole.

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 score0.448
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.164 · 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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSpacecraft and Cryogenic TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207