MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2951580611 · doi:10.4271/2019-01-1939

A Penalization Method for 2D Ice Accretion Simulations

2019· article· en· W2951580611 on OpenAlexaff
P. Lavoie, Ghislain Blanchard, Emmanuel Radenac, Éric Laurendeau, Philippe Villedieu

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIcing and De-icing Technologies
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeologyAccretion (finance)Computer scienceGeophysicsAstrobiologyPhysicsAstrophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">Numerical tools for 3D in-flight icing simulations are not straightforward to automate when seeking robustness and quality of the results. Difficulties arise from the geometry and mesh updates which need to be treated with care to avoid folding of the geometry, negative volumes or poor mesh quality. This paper aims at solving the mesh update issue by avoiding the re-meshing of the iced geometry. An immersed boundary method (here, penalization) is applied to a 2D ice accretion suite for multi-step icing simulations. The suggested approach starts from a standard body-fitted mesh, thus keeping the same solution for the first icing layer. Then, instead of updating the mesh, a penalization method is applied including: the detection of the immersed boundary, the penalization of the volume solvers to impose the boundary condition and the extraction of the surface data from the field solution. Although the current work is intended for 3D simulations, the content of this paper is limited to 2D applications to show the feasibility of the method. Tests are performed on multi-step rime and glaze ice cases where it is observed that the penalization method is able to produce sensible ice shapes compared to a body-fitted approach. However, accurate results are only achieved if the mesh is <i>a priori</i> refined in the zone where ice accretion is expected. The paper will further discuss the computational time, mesh refinement requirements, accuracy, limitations and recommendations for improvement of the penalization method applied to icing.</div></div>

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper seriesSame topicIcing and De-icing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207