MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320928796 · doi:10.2514/6.2015-0914

Adaptive curvature control grid generation algorithms for complex glaze ice shapes RANS simulations

2015· article· en· W2320928796 on OpenAlexaff
Kazem Hasanzadeh Lashkajani, Éric Laurendeau, Ion Paraschivoiu

Bibliographic record

Venue53rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIcing and De-icing Technologies
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlgorithmMesh generationCurvatureMultigrid methodComputer scienceSolverContext (archaeology)MathematicsMathematical optimizationGeometryMathematical analysisPartial differential equationEngineeringFinite element method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper presents the development of a novel adaptive curvature control algorithm for the generation of meshes around complex glaze ice shapes. First, the theory of elliptic grid generation is reviewed, laying out the physical/parametric/computational space approaches. Second, the choice of control functions ensuring spacing, curvature and orthogonality requirements are described for 2D mesh generation, including a novel blended approach which mixes the use of Sorenson and Spekreijse functions and parabolic methods. Third, a novel 1D automated curvature control algorithm is used to control the arclength grid spacing, so that high curvature regions around ice horns are appropriately captured while avoiding the grid shock problem. Finally, the performance of several solution algorithms (Point-Jacobi, Gauss-Seidel, ADI, Point and Line SOR) are discussed within the context of a full MultiGrid operator. Details are given on the various formulations used in the linearization process. It is shown that the performance of the solution algorithm depends on the type of control function used. Validation of the final algorithms is done within the framework of CANICE2D-NS, by running the embedded multi-block Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes flow solver to obtain the pressure distribution, lift and drag coefficients for standard icing test cases.

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)0.001
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 score0.792
Threshold uncertainty score0.783

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.190 · 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

Citations7
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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