MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3188038261 · doi:10.2514/6.2021-2629

Multi-Layer Stochastic Ice Accretion Model for Aircraft Icing

2021· article· en· W3188038261 on OpenAlexaff
Helene Papillon Laroche, Simon Bourgault-Côté, Éric Laurendeau

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA AVIATION 2021 FORUM · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIcing and De-icing Technologies
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIcingAccretion (finance)GridNACA airfoilAirfoilMechanicsMeteorologyGeologyMathematicsGeometryPhysicsTurbulenceReynolds number

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

View Video Presentation: https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2021-2629.vid This paper presents a stochastic approach to model ice accretion on airfoils under in-flight icing conditions within a multi-layer process. The stochasticity itself is introduced in the impingement and freezing steps of water particles, as suggested in the literature. The model implementation is thought for reducing the CPU and memory cost by solving the stochastic ice accretion on an advancing front grid made of Cartesian cells, called pixels. Furthermore, the impingement and freezing processes are performed with probabilities obtained from the droplet trajectory and thermodynamic modules, respectively, which are compared against pseudo-random numbers generated with a uniform distribution. Multi-layer icing is achieved by extracting a new geometry from the stochastic field solution into a B-spline at a given time in order to regenerate a body-conforming grid and to start again the overall ice accretion process for a new layer. Verification and validation are performed on two NACA0012 test cases. Numerical results are compared to experimental data and are found to be qualitatively in better agreement as the number of icing layers increases. The proposed approach successes to capture the overall ice geometries of the test cases, despite some ice height discrepancies. In particular, the ice density is shown to change along the surface, which is expected in real ice experiment. Since the ice density is a dependent variable of the problem, a calibration of the model could lead to improved ice shapes predictions.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIAA AVIATION 2021 FORUMSame topicIcing and De-icing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207