MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2963639246

Design and analysis of a car radiator fan assembly to mitigate the effect of aeroacoustic dipole noise

2019· article· en· W2963639246 on OpenAlexaff
Anshuman Kumaar Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational journal of advance research, ideas and innovations in technology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerodynamics and Fluid Dynamics Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMechanical fanAcousticsAerodynamicsNoise (video)TurbofanEngineeringRadiator (engine cooling)VortexAeroacousticsTurbulenceAerospace engineeringMechanical engineeringComputer sciencePhysicsMechanicsSound pressure
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Engine cooling fans contribute a major portion of the total noise generated by the different mechanisms in a car. Therefore the design aspect of the fan blades and housing need impeccable research and careful machining to limit the noise level to a bare minimum. The noise generated from the design aspect of the fan can be grouped into two categories, rotational and irrotational. The rotational domain takes into consideration the effect of turbulence and inflow distortion while the irrotational domain considers the effects of laminar boundary layer vortex shedding, blade interaction with tip clearance and the phenomena of blade stall. The objective is to analyze the acoustic behavior and response from the fan blade and housing when exposed to incoming airflow in a car. The process due to which the aeroacoustic dipole noise is generated is investigated and the parameters affecting the noise level are assessed. The flow and acoustic analysis are carried out on SOLID WORKS flow simulation and the generated data for our particular case is represented on a graphical scale against frequency. The causes behind noise generation in a fan assembly is studied and major emphasis is laid on the aerodynamic factors, which affect the noise generation in the radiator cooling fans. After validating the theoretical procedure, an attempt is made to redesign the existing fan assembly structure by adding grills and MPP dampeners and source modification is done to reduce noise levels.

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 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 score0.487
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.309 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational journal of advance research, ideas and innovations in technologySame topicAerodynamics and Fluid Dynamics ResearchFrench-language works237,207