MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319299338 · doi:10.2514/1.j062427

Flow Separation in Airfoils with Rough Leading Edges

2023· article· en· W4319299338 on OpenAlexafffund
V. R. Sanal Kumar, Arnau Miró, O. Lehmkuhl, Ugo Piomelli

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIcing and De-icing Technologies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMitacsBombardier
KeywordsAirfoilTrailing edgeFlow separationLeading edgeMechanicsTurbulenceAngle of attackVortexChord (peer-to-peer)Stall (fluid mechanics)Surface finishPhysicsGeometryMaterials scienceAerodynamicsMathematicsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study we consider the flow over airfoils with leading-edge roughness, designed to mimic the ice depositions that may occur on an aircraft in flight. The focus of this investigation is the effect of the angle of attack on the mean-flow three-dimensionality. In our previous work (Kumar et al., Journal of Turbulence, Vol. 22, No. 11, 2021, pp. 735–760), we found stationary spanwise inhomogeneities in the form of alternating regions of fast- and slow-moving fluid, which were termed “flow channels.” In the present study we investigate further this phenomenon. We observe the formation of hairpin vortices downstream of the roughness elements, which eventually merge; this causes the formation of wider channels that remain coherent and affect the trailing-edge separation. With increasing angle of attack, the intensity of flow channeling can increase or decrease depending on the topology of the leading-edge roughness. Its effect on the trailing-edge separation remains, however, significant. The mean-separation line is highly distorted, and the separation length can vary by up to 30% of the chord length along the span.

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)0.000
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 score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.253
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIAA JournalSame topicIcing and De-icing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207