Sensitivity Study of Ice Accretion Simulation to Roughness Thermal Correction Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of atmospheric icing can be anticipated by Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD). Past studies show that the convective heat transfer influences the ice accretion and is itself a function of surface roughness. Uncertainty quantification (UQ) could help quantify the impact of surface roughness parameters on the reliability of ice accretion prediction. This paper aims to quantify ice accretion uncertainties and identify the key surface roughness correction parameters contributing the most to the uncertainties in a Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) formulation. Ice accretion simulations over a rough flat plate using two thermal correction models are used to construct a RANS database. Non-Intrusive Polynomial Chaos Expansion (NIPCE) metamodels are developed to predict the convective heat transfer and icing characteristics of the RANS database. The metamodels allow for the computation of the 95% confidence intervals of the output probability distribution (PDF) and of the sensitivity indexes of the roughness parameters according to their level of influence on the outputs. For one of the thermal correction models, the most influential parameter is the roughness height, whereas for the second model it is the surface correction coefficient. In addition, the uncertainty on the freestream temperature has a minor impact on the ice accretion sensitivity compared to the uncertainty on the roughness parameters.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".