Large-Eddy Simulation of a Single Airfoil Tip-Leakage Flow
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A Large-Eddy Simulation is performed on a single non-rotating airfoil with tip gap in order to highlight the noise sources in the tip-leakage flow. The geometry is composed of a NACA 5510 airfoil (5% camber, 10% thickness) mounted between two flat plates, with a 10 mm tip gap between the airfoil and one of the plates. The Reynolds number based on the chord is 960,000 and the Mach number is 0.2. The aerodynamic results from the simulation show the formation of the tip-leakage vortex and the interaction of the turbulent structures that exit the gap with the external flow near the trailing edge. Then, a Ffowcs Williams & Hawkings analogy is used to compute the far-field noise levels and an acoustic decomposition is performed to highlight the main surface contributions to the tip-leakage noise. The numerical simulation shows very good agreement compared with experiments and allows identifying the main noise source in the tip gap. The main noise source results in the interaction of the turbulent structures created in the tip gap close to the pressure side corner with the suction side tip edge. The scraping of turbulent structures along the tip edge shows to be an efficient noise mechanism.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".