MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224215678 · doi:10.4271/02-16-01-0001

Numerical Investigation on the Effect of Lateral Skirts Device on the Flow Dynamics around a Semi-trailer Truck

2022· article· en· W4224215678 on OpenAlexaff
Mohamed Lateb, Marouen Dghim, Hachimi Fellouah

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE International journal of commercial vehicles · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerodynamics and Fluid Dynamics Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrailerTruckDynamics (music)Flow (mathematics)Automotive engineeringComputational fluid dynamicsEngineeringVehicle dynamicsAerospace engineeringMarine engineeringMechanicsPhysicsAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<div>Society of automative engineers (SAE) guidelines for computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and wind-tunnel tests on semi-trailer trucks were complied with to investigate the influence of adding a lateral skirts device—in the lower trailer part—on the improvement of the total drag force and the airflow structure around the truck. A reduced-scale (1:28) semi-trailer truck moving at three various speeds (i.e., 50 km/h, 75 km/h, and 100 km/h) is considered in this study. A reasonable agreement between experimental and numerical results was achieved in terms of the drag force parameter with a highest relative error of about 13% obtained in the case of the lowest speed (i.e., 50 km/h) of a truck without skirts. The numerical results yielded an average drag coefficient value of 0.48, which is reduced to 0.45 when the skirt device is added to the vehicle model. The airflow field analysis showed that the skirt device isolates and channels the flow toward the back in the lower part of the trailer, thus protecting the relatively structured flow from lateral disturbances that induce high turbulence which, in turn, generates an increase in the aerodynamic drag force.</div>

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)0.001
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 score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE International journal of commercial vehiclesSame topicAerodynamics and Fluid Dynamics ResearchFrench-language works237,207