MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283262001 · doi:10.2514/6.2022-3699

Optical measurement of ice crystal icing on a NACA 0018 airfoil

2022· article· en· W4283262001 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jonathan Connolly, Matthew McGilvray, David R. H. Gillespie

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA AVIATION 2022 Forum · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIcing and De-icing Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIcingNACA airfoilAirfoilAerospace engineeringIce crystalsWind tunnelMeteorologyGeologyEngineeringPhysicsTurbulence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

View Video Presentation: https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2022-3699.vid The ingestion of high altitude ice crystals into jet engines can have a serious effect on their performance, to mitigate the risk of engine failure, the physics behind the accretion process needs to be understood. Previous research has used simplistic geometries to generate empirical models and newer research has also analysed more engine realistic geometries such as cascades and full annular geometries. The fidelity of numerical modelling of ice crystal icing has improved vastly, meaning that complex geometries can now be numerically predicted. High-quality experimental data of accretion profiles are needed for validation of these numerical models. Conventional measurement techniques can only be used on simplistic geometries or used after the accretion has formed. A transient, non-intrusive method is therefore required. A method involving stereo vision, called digital image projection (DIP) has been developed and is analysed in this paper. A simplistic geometry of a NACA 0018 airfoil was chosen to study the measurement technique so that high accuracy data could be obtained by alternative methods to validate the DIP. The experiment was conducted using the Altitude Icing Wind Tunnel (AIWT), at the National Research Center (NRC) of Canada. The results showed that the DIP system was able to measure the accretion profile growth during the test to a high degree of accuracy when compared to a separate commercial method, with the mean error being less than 0.2 mm.

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)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.201
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIAA AVIATION 2022 ForumSame topicIcing and De-icing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207