MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068448004 · doi:10.2514/1.c033093

Internal Drag Evaluation for a Through-Flow Nacelle Using a Far-Field Approach

2015· article· en· W2068448004 on OpenAlexaff
Benoit Malouin, Martin Gariépy, Jean‐Yves Trépanier, Éric Laurendeau

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aircraft · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNacelleDragInternal flowParasitic dragAerodynamic dragWave dragDrag divergence Mach numberAerospace engineeringMechanicsLift-induced dragAirframeAerodynamicsDrag coefficientComputational fluid dynamicsFlow (mathematics)Computer sciencePhysicsEngineeringTurbine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main objective of this research is to propose a method for decomposing the total drag of a nacelle into external, internal, and wake drag. From a bookkeeping agreement, the internal drag (i.e., the drag generated inside a nacelle) is the engine manufacturer’s responsibility and is not to be included in the aircraft’s total drag. Consequently, computing the internal drag is mandatory for the airframe and engine constructors concerned and can be achieved either experimentally or by computational-fluid-dynamics analysis. Up to now, aerodynamic engineers have used a near-field approach to compute the internal drag using computational-fluid-dynamics analysis, but this method has serious drawbacks, including its dependency on the accurate location of the stagnation line. The new method proposed here has been applied to multiple two- and three-dimensional test cases, and results show that it is independent of the location of the stagnation line and yields accurate results that agree well with experimental and empirical data. Results also show that the wake drag of a through-flow nacelle is caused by the flow passing through the nacelle and so needs to be added to the internal drag.

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)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.594
Threshold uncertainty score0.382

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.248 · 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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AircraftSame topicComputational Fluid Dynamics and AerodynamicsFrench-language works237,207