Comparative analysis of the aerodynamic behavior on Ahmed body mounted with different wheel configurations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wheel configuration is the great significance for vehicle aerodynamics, and understanding the influences of wheel configuration on the aerodynamic behaviors of vehicle is a good choice to effectively decrease aerodynamic drag and optimize aerodynamic efficiency. In this study, the aerodynamic characteristics of Ahmed body mounted with different wheels configurations were evaluated by Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) using the lattice Boltzmann method. The simulation results were compared with published research data to study resolutions independence and verify the accuracy of the numerical method. The four opening areas of the rim were used to form different wheel configurations. The result showed that the drag of the front and rear wheels increases linearly with the increase of the rim opening area, while the drag of the bodywork decreases linearly. Downstream the body region, the structures of vortex shedding and surface pressure presented differences for each wheel configuration, which further resulted in different fluctuation intensities in wake vortices. The order of the width of the wake vortices in wheel region was as follows: W 4 > W3 > W2 > W1. The front wheel had a mainly affect on the time-averaged slipstream peak around the outside of vehicle body.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it