Are aircraft acceleration-induced body forces effective on contaminant dispersion in passenger aircraft cabins?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Numerical simulations for the effect of body forces due to aircraft acceleration on the airflow and contaminant dispersion in a model for a passenger aircraft cabin are performed in this study. Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) was used as the in-cabin contaminant and served as a surrogate for cough particles in the size from 1.6 to 3.0 µm. It was found that those body forces have a significant impact on the contaminant dispersion phenomena and concentrations, especially during the climb leg, where the time-integrated concentration was 2.4 to 2.8 times its counterpart during the steady level (cruise) flight case at the two monitoring locations for most of the simulation time. However, the exposure to the contaminant did not change appreciably during the descent leg. Air velocities, on the other hand, increased noticeably during the climb and descent legs, leading to evident changes in the airflow patterns, airflow circulation magnitude, and, at some locations, airflow circulation directions. The current study has limitations, requiring detailed calculations while considering parametric variations. The findings warrant a closer investigation into the effects of body forces due to aircraft acceleration on the airflow and contaminant dispersion in various passenger aircraft cabins.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".