MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998188376 · doi:10.2514/6.2020-2044

From Sparse Pressure Measurements to Prediction of Instantaneous Loads: A Test Case on Delta Wings in Axial and Transverse Gusts

2020· article· en· W2998188376 on OpenAlexaff
Louis A. Burelle, Wenchao Yang, David E. Rival

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA Scitech 2020 Forum · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerodynamics and Acoustics in Jet Flows
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAerodynamicsDelta wingTransverse planeVortexMechanicsSurface pressureAngle of attackSwept wingTowingFlow (mathematics)Aerodynamic forcePressure measurementAmplitudeLinear regressionGeometryMathematicsStructural engineeringPhysicsEngineeringOpticsMeteorologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For a broad range of aerodynamic bodies, vortex structures arising from perturbations such as gusts admit recognizable surface pressure signatures and are coupled to the observed destabilizing loads. This study evaluates the extent to which sparsely-measured pressure signatures can be used to identify the spatio-temporal evolution of vortex structures and, specifically, their effect on the aerodynamic loadings. As a data-driven endeavour, a linear mapping from surface pressure to these loadings is developed and a non-slender delta wing experiencing axial and transverse accelerations is selected as test case. Direct time-resolved loads and distributed surface pressures are collected in a towing tank over three incidence angles (10, 20, 30 deg). The linear coefficients are extracted from true measured loads and sparse pressures by linear regression at each incidence angle and for an angle-independent aggregate case. The angle-specific fits have good agreement at low angles but, as the angle increases, reveal the limitations of a linear model. The aggregate method represents a more robust force-pressure mapping at the expense of a slightly decreased goodness of fit and infers the existence of a common mechanism across accelerations and angles despite the stark differences in flow conditions. A spatial interpretation of the regression coefficients supports this commonality by revealing regions of greater significance to the unsteady loads resulting from the separation and reattachment events in the flow.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIAA Scitech 2020 ForumSame topicAerodynamics and Acoustics in Jet FlowsFrench-language works237,207