MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2888995238 · doi:10.1115/gt2018-75204

Estimating the Drag Developed by a High Bypass Ratio Turbofan Engine

2018· article· en· W2888995238 on OpenAlexaff
M. S. Zawislak, D. J. Cerantola, A. M. Birk

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAdvanced Aircraft Design and Technologies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurbofanComputational fluid dynamicsThrustReynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equationsDragNozzleStall (fluid mechanics)Aerospace engineeringEngineeringMechanicsSimulationPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A high bypass ratio turbofan engine capable of powering the Boeing 757 was considered for thrust and drag analysis. A quasi-2D engine model applying the fundamental thermodynamics conservation equations and practical constraints determined engine performance and provided cross-sectional areas in the low-pressure system. Coupled with suggestions on boat-tail angle and curvature from literature, a representative bypass duct and primary exhaust nozzle was created. 3D steady-RANS simulations using Fluent® 18 were performed on a 1/8th axisymmetric section of the geometry. A modified 3D fan zone model forcing radial equilibrium was used to model the fan and bypass stator. Takeoff speed and cruise operating conditions were modeled and simulated to identify changes in thrust composition and intake sensitivity. Comparison between net thrust predictions by the engine model and measured in CFD were within grid uncertainty and model sensitivity at cruise. Trends observed in a published database were satisfied and calculations coincided with GasTurb™ 8.0. Verification of thrust in this manner gave confidence to the aerodynamic performance prediction of this modest CFD. Obtaining a baseline bypass design would allow rapid testing of aftermarket components and integration techniques in a realistic flow-field without reliance on proprietary engine data.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.645
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0020.001

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.217 · 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.

Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Aircraft Design and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207