MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2284329466 · doi:10.4271/2008-01-1204

The Two-Variable Boundary-Interference Correction Applied to Automotive Aerodynamic Data

2008· article· en· W2284329466 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kevin Cooper, M. Mokry, Mark Gleason

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerodynamics and Fluid Dynamics Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Research Council Canada
KeywordsAerodynamicsAutomotive industryInterference (communication)Variable (mathematics)Computer scienceBoundary (topology)Aerospace engineeringAutomotive engineeringEngineeringMathematicsTelecommunicationsMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents applications of the Two-Variable method for the correction of solid-wall boundary interference of both wind tunnel and CFD data for a simplified automobile model at zero yaw angle and to a flat-plate wing over a 90° angle range. The latter model has flowfields that vary from those of a streamlined body at 0° yaw to those of a bluff body at 90° yaw. The Two-Variable method utilizes measurements on the wind tunnel walls to estimate the interference velocity components induced by the solid boundaries. The correction of the forces and moments from these interference velocities are obtained by Hackett's force model. The paper compares this method to a simpler analytical method that is more practical to apply in closed-wall wind tunnels. It is shown that the effect of the wind tunnel walls or CFD domain boundaries can accurately removed by these techniques for model/domain area ratios of up to 0.15.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.241 · 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

Citations12
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper seriesSame topicAerodynamics and Fluid Dynamics ResearchFrench-language works237,207