MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3190434546 · doi:10.2514/1.j060163

ACAT1 Fan Stage Broadband Noise Prediction Using Large-Eddy Simulation and Analytical Models

2022· article· en· W3190434546 on OpenAlexaff
Danny Lewis, Stéphane Moreau, Marc C. Jacob, Marlène Sanjosé

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerodynamics and Acoustics in Jet Flows
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersHorizon 2020 Framework Programme
KeywordsStage (stratigraphy)BroadbandNoise (video)AcousticsLarge eddy simulationEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceMeteorologyGeologyPhysicsTelecommunicationsArtificial intelligenceTurbulence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present paper deals with the assessment of the turbulent flow through and the noise radiation of the ACAT1 fan stage, which was tested in the framework of the European project TurbonoiseBB. It aims at analyzing and predicting the broadband noise resulting from the impact of the fan wakes onto the outlet guide vane (OGV) at approach condition. This is achieved via a large-eddy simulation (LES) of the full fan-OGV stage that is in good agreement with the mean flow measurements. Some disparities regarding the turbulent content of the flow are, however, highlighted. The main flow features and the broadband noise sources are examined. The noise is then estimated using two different hybrid approaches: LES-informed analytical models, using Hanson’s and Posson’s cascade models, and a numerical approach coupling the LES with the free-field Ffowcs Williams and Hawkings (FW-H) analogy, and Goldstein’s in-duct acoustic analogy. The shape of the noise spectra provided by the analytical models is relatively similar to that of the sound measurements, whereas some discrepancies on the absolute noise levels may appear depending on the analytical model and the turbulence length scale estimate. The numerical approach reveals that accounting for the duct effect through Goldstein’s analogy provides noise levels much closer to the measurements than those obtained with the free-field analogy, which significantly overestimates the broadband noise. Both the analytical and the numerical approaches suggest that additional significant noise sources might be present in both the experiment and the simulation.

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 score0.433
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations22
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIAA JournalSame topicAerodynamics and Acoustics in Jet FlowsFrench-language works237,207