MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2620566911 · doi:10.2514/6.2017-3418

Three-Dimensional Numerical Simulation of Ice Accretion using a Discrete Morphogenetic Approach

2017· article· en· W2620566911 on OpenAlexafffund
Krzysztof Szilder, Edward P. Lozowski

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIcing and De-icing Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaNational Research Council Canada
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceAccretion (finance)Computer simulationGeologyPhysicsSimulationAstrophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

NRC has developed an original, three-dimensional icing modelling capability, called the “morphogenetic” approach, based on a discrete formulation and simulation of ice formation physics. Morphogenetic icing modelling improves on existing ice accretion models in that it is capable of predicting simultaneous rime and glaze ice accretions and ice accretions with variable density and complex geometries. To partially validate the model, we have performed laboratory experiments of ice accretions on a NACA0012 swept wing in the NRC Altitude Icing Wind Tunnel (AIWT). Ice shapes were recorded and analysed for 30° and 45° sweep angles and for a range of airflow and icing conditions. The swept wing configuration was chosen because it is the most challenging case for all numerical predictive models. The objective of this paper is to compare model and experimental ice predictions on a swept wing, including complex three-dimensional features such as lobster tails. The results show that the morphogenetic approach can produce realistic simulations of both the overall size/shape and the detailed structure of the ice accretions forming on a swept wing. As far as we know, no other numerical icing model can simulate such three-dimensional ice structure complexity.

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)0.000
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 score0.521
Threshold uncertainty score0.331

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.235 · 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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIcing and De-icing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207