Evaluation of Alternative Altitude Scaling Methods for Thermal Ice Protection System in NASA Icing Research Tunnel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A test was conducted at NASA Icing Research Tunnel (IRT) to evaluate altitude scaling methods for thermal ice protection systems. Two new scaling methods based on Weber number were compared against an existing method based on Reynolds number. The results generally agreed with the previous set of tests conducted in the National Research Council Canada Altitude Icing Wind Tunnel (AIWT) where the three methods of scaling were also tested and compared along with reference (altitude) icing conditions. In those tests, the Weber number-based scaling methods yielded results much closer to those observed at the reference icing conditions than the Reynolds number-based icing conditions. The test in the NASA IRT used a much larger, asymmetric airfoil with an ice protection system that more closely resembled designs used in commercial aircraft. Following the trends observed during the AIWT tests, the Weber number based scaling methods resulted in smaller runback ice than the Reynolds number based scaling, and the ice formed farther upstream. The results show that the new Weber number based scaling methods, particularly the Weber number with water loading scaling, continue to show promise for ice protection system development and evaluation in atmospheric icing tunnels.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".