Numerical Experiments for Flow Around a Ducted Tip Hydrofoil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance and cavitation characteristics of marine propellers and hydrofoils are strongly affected by tip vortex behavior. A number of previous computational studies have been done on tip vortices, both in aerodynamic and marine applications. The focus, however, has primarily been on validating methods for prediction and advancing the understanding of tip-vortex formation in general, rather than showing effects of tip modifications on tip vortices. Studies of the most relevance to the current work include computational studies by Dacles-Mariani et al. (1995) and Hsiao and Pauley (1998, 1999). Daeles-Mariani et al. carried out interactively a computational and experimental study of the wingtip vortex in the near field using a full Navier-Stokes simulation, accompanied with the Baldwin-Barth turbulence model. Although they showed improvement over numerical results obtained by previous researchers, the tip vortex strength was underpredicted. Hsiao and Pauley (1998) studied the steady-state tip vortex flow over a finite-span hydrofoil, also using the Baldwin-Barth turbulence model. They were able to achieve good agreement in pressure distribution and oil flow pattern with experimental data and accurately predict vertical and axial velocities of the tip vortex core within the near-field region. Far downstream, however, the computed flow field was overly diffused within the tip vortex core. Hsiao and Pauley (1999) also carried out a computational study of the tip vortex flow generated by a marine propeller. The general characteristics of the flow were well predicted but the vortex core was again overly diffused.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".