MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2238155826 · doi:10.1108/ijius-06-2015-0007

A propeller model for general forward flight conditions

2015· article· en· W2238155826 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Intelligent Unmanned Systems · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCavitation Phenomena in Pumps
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPropellerAerodynamicsThrustBlade element momentum theoryAdvance ratioBlade element theoryTorqueStall (fluid mechanics)Aerodynamic forceInflowAngle of attackTurbopropFlow (mathematics)MechanicsAerospace engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringControl theory (sociology)PhysicsBlade pitchMarine engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to develop a physics-based model for UAV propellers that is capable of predicting all aerodynamic forces and moments in any general forward flight condition such as no flow, pure axial flow and pure side flow etc. Design/methodology/approach – The methodology adopted in this paper is the widely used Blade Element Momentum Theory (BEMT) for propeller model development. The difficulty arising from the variation of induced flow with blade’s angular position is overcome by supplementing the BEMT with the inflow model developed by Pitt and Peters. More so, high angle of attack aerodynamics is embedded in the simulation as it is likely for the blades to stall in general forward flight, for example during extreme aerobatics/maneuvers. Findings – The validity of the model is demonstrated via comparison with experiments as well as with other existing models. It is found that one of the secondary forces is negligible while the other is one order of magnitude less than the primary static thrust, and as such may be neglected depending on the level of accuracy required. On the other hand, both secondary moments must be considered as they are of similar order of magnitude as the primary static torque. Research limitations/implications – The paper does not consider the swirl component of the induced flow under the assumption that it is negligible compared to the axial component. Originality/value – This paper fulfills the identified need of a propeller model for general forward flight conditions, and aims to fill this void in the existing literature pertaining to UAVs.

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.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score0.597

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.251 · 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