MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2952892789 · doi:10.1177/0954410019853902

Fixed and rotary wing transonic aerodynamic improvement via surface-based trapped vortex generators

2019· article· en· W2952892789 on OpenAlexaff
Khider Al-Jaburi, Dániel Feszty

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part G Journal of Aerospace Engineering · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAirfoilFreestreamTransonicDrag divergence Mach numberAerospace engineeringNACA airfoilAngle of attackMach numberLift-to-drag ratioMechanicsDragVortex generatorAerodynamicsSubsonic and transonic wind tunnelComputational fluid dynamicsRelative windPhysicsVortexEngineeringReynolds numberTurbulence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A novel passive flow control concept for transonic flows over airfoils is proposed and examined via computational fluid dynamics. The control concept is based on the local modification of the airfoil's geometry. It aims to reduce drag or to increase lift without deteriorating the original lift and/or drag characteristics of the airfoil, respectively. Such flow control technique could be beneficial for improving the range or endurance of transonic aircraft or for mitigating the negative effects of transonic flow on the advancing blades of helicopter rotors. To explore the feasibility of the concept, two-dimensional computational fluid dynamics simulations of a NACA 0012 airfoil exposed to a freestream of Mach 0.7 and Re = 9 × 10 6 as well as of a NASA SC(3)−0712(B) supercritical airfoil exposed to a freestream of Mach 0.78 and Re = 30 × 10 6 were conducted. The baseline airfoil simulations were carefully verified and validated, showing excellent agreement with wind tunnel data. Then, 32 various local geometry modifications were proposed and systematically examined, all functioning as a trapped-vortex generator. The surface modifications were examined on both the upper and lower surfaces of the airfoils. The upper surface modifications demonstrated remarkable ability to reduce the strength of the shockwave on the upper surface of the airfoil with only a small penalty in lift. On the other hand, the lower surface modifications could significantly increase the lift-to-drag ratio for the full range of the investigated angles of attack, when compared to the baseline airfoil.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.161
Teacher spread0.158 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part G Journal of Aerospace EngineeringSame topicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent FlowsFrench-language works237,207