MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994815742 · doi:10.3390/ijtpp4040043

Prediction of Crosswind Separation Velocity for Fan and Nacelle Systems Using Body Force Models: Part 1: Fan Body Force Model Generation without Detailed Stage Geometry

2019· article· en· W2994815742 on OpenAlexafffund
Quentin J. Minaker, Jeff Defoe

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Turbomachinery Propulsion and Power · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTurbomachinery Performance and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersCompute Canada
KeywordsNacelleTurbofanComputational fluid dynamicsThrustAerospace engineeringDragInflowAerodynamicsTransonicEngineeringSimulationMechanical engineeringMechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Modern aircraft engines must accommodate inflow distortions entering the engines as a consequence of modifying the size, shape, and placement of the engines and/or nacelle to increase propulsive efficiency and reduce aircraft weight and drag. It is important to be able to predict the interactions between the external flow and the fan early in the design process. This is challenging due to computational cost and limited access to detailed fan/engine geometry. In this, the first part of a two part paper, we present a design process that produces a fan gas path and body force model with performance representative of modern high bypass ratio turbofan engines. The target users are those with limited experience in turbomachinery design or limited access to fan geometry. We employ quasi-1D analysis and a series of simplifying assumptions to produce a gas path and the body force model inputs. Using a body force model of the fan enables steady computational fluid dynamics simulations to capture fan–distortion interaction. The approach is verified for the NASA Stage 67 transonic fan. An example of the design process is also included; the model generated is shown to meet the desired fan stagnation pressure ratio and thrust to within 1%.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.177
Threshold uncertainty score0.748

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Turbomachinery Propulsion and PowerSame topicTurbomachinery Performance and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207