Numerical assessment of the tonal noise of Counter-Rotating Open Rotors at approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A hybrid method combining a three-dimensional unsteady Reynolds-Averaged Navier–Stokes simulation of a cropped Counter-Rotating Open Rotors at approach conditions and an acoustic analogy either based on a time formulation, an advanced-time formulation of Ffowcs-Williams and Hawkings’ analogy, or on a frequency formulation, an extension of Hanson’s model to non compact chord length, has shown three main sources, the impacts of the front-rotor wakes on the aft-rotor, of the front-rotor tip vortex on the aft-rotor tip, and of the front-rotor hub horse-shoe vortex on the aft-rotor blade foot. Consequently, this study confirms that the aft-rotor is the dominant tonal noise source and has identified another potential noise source when the Counter-Rotating Open Rotors is installed caused by the strong tip vortex of the highly loaded cropped aft-rotor. The present rotor–rotor distance should not be reduced as the potential effect from the aft rotor is already felt on the front rotor. The influence of several numerical parameters including grid refinement, data sampling, and simulation length has been evaluated on both aerodynamic and acoustic performances.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".