A Multi-Tool Analysis to Assess the Effectiveness of Passive Ice Protection Materials to Assist Rotorcraft Manual De-Icing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Search and rescue missions using rotorcrafts need to be reliable all year long, even in winter conditions. In some cases of deployment prior to take off, the crew may need to manually remove accumulated contaminant from the critical surfaces using tools at their disposal. However, icy contaminant may be hard to remove since the rotorcrafts critical surfaces could be cooler than the environment, thus promoting adhesion. Currently, there exists several passive ice protection materials that could reduce the ice adhesion strength and assist the manual de-icing. The aim of this paper is to propose a detailed comparative procedure to assess the ability of materials to assist the manual de-icing of rotorcrafts. The proposed procedure consists of the characterization of materials using several laboratory tests in order to determine their characteristics pertaining to wettability, their icephobic behavior, and finally their assessment under a multi-tool analysis to evaluate if they can assist. The multi-tool analysis uses different mechanical tools, which are currently used during normal operation, to execute a gradual de-icing procedure, which begins with the softest to the hardest tool using a constant number of passes or strokes, under different types of simulated precipitation. Five different materials were used to evaluate the proposed procedure: Aluminum (used as a reference), two silicone-based coatings (Nusil and SurfEllent), an epoxy-based coating (Wearlon), and finally a commercial ski wax (Swix). All of the tested materials could assist the manual de-icing, within a certain limit, when compared to the bare aluminum. However, SurfEllent was the material that obtained the best overall results. This procedure could be easily adapted to different fields of application and could be used as a development tool for the optimization and the assessment of new materials aimed to reduce ice adhesion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".