MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2103274655 · doi:10.2514/6.2015-0535

Two-Dimensional/Infinite Swept Wing Ice Accretion Model

2015· article· en· W2103274655 on OpenAlexafffund
Simon Bourgault-Côté, Éric Laurendeau

Bibliographic record

Venue53rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIcing and De-icing Technologies
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWingGeologyAccretion (finance)Computer scienceAerospace engineeringPhysicsAstrophysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A framework for icing simulations, using state-of-the-art technology for solving mesh, airflow and droplets equations, is presented. A two-dimensional Eulerian droplet flow solver has been developped with multi-timesteps approach and extended with infinite swept wing hypothesis. The overarching objective is to enable fast three-dimensional ice prediction by the calculation of several 2D computations along the swept wing span. The droplets crossflow equation is solved using the decoupled implicit Euler scheme used for the 2D system, without added complexity, nor degradation in performances. A thermodynamic module based on an iterative Messinger approach has been developped to treat multi-stagnation points. The 2D solver is validated on two cases, rime and glaze, against experimental data and other numerical codes. The infinite swept wing droplets solver is successfully validated against 3D infinite swept wing results obtained with NSMB-ICE, a 3D ice accretion solver. Finaly, a comparison is performed on a finite swept wing with NSMB-ICE results, experimental data and LEWICE results, demonstrating the feasability of the infinite swept wing approach.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue53rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences MeetingSame topicIcing and De-icing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207