Acoustic Investigation of the Transonic RAE 2822 Airfoil with Large-Eddy Simulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An acoustic investigation is achieved on the transonic RAE 2822 airfoil in order to highlight the main noise sources and to compare the porous surface and the solid surface formulations of the Ffowcs Williams and Hawkings analogy. A 50 mm slice of the airfoil is computed using compressible large-eddy simulation. The airfoil chord is 0.3048 m, the inflow Reynolds number based on chord is 6.5e6, the inflow Mach number is 0.725, and the angle of attack is 2.91°. Simulations are compared with experimental data and show very good agreement. A strong shock is located on the airfoil suction side and is responsible for acoustic radiation in the far-field in addition to the airfoil self noise (trailing-edge noise). Yet, the solid surface formulation is shown to be sufficient to capture most of the acoustic signature in the far-field, which indicates that quadrupole noise sources related to the shock have a smaller contribution compared to the dipole noise source mainly located at the trailing edge. The latter is confirmed by additional predictions based on Amiet’s moel. This work can be used as an acoustic benchmark for future numerical investigations on the RAE 2822 airfoil since it is the first compressible large-eddy simulation for acoustic investigation achieved on this configuration.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".