MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380589814 · doi:10.4271/2023-01-1402

Numerical Study of Iced Swept-Wing Performance Degradation using RANS

2023· article· en· W4380589814 on OpenAlexaff
Isik Ozcer, Alberto Pueyo, Florian Menter, Sabrina Hafid, Hong Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper series · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIcing and De-icing Technologies
Canadian institutionsBombardier (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equationsComputational fluid dynamicsAerodynamicsReynolds numberAerospace engineeringAirfoilWind tunnelEngineeringMarine engineeringMechanicsPhysicsTurbulence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<div class="section abstract"><div class="htmlview paragraph">This paper studies the level of confidence and applicability of CFD simulations using steady-state Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) in predicting aerodynamic performance losses on swept-wings due to contamination with ice accreted in-flight. The wing geometry selected for the study is the 65%-scale Common Research Model (CRM65) main wing, for which NASA Glenn Research Center’s Icing Research Tunnel has generated experimental ice shapes for the inboard, mid-span, and outboard sections. The reproductions at various levels of fidelity from detailed 3D scans of these ice shapes have been used in recent aerodynamic testing at the Office National d’Etudes et Recherches Aérospatiales (ONERA) and Wichita State University (WSU) wind tunnels. The ONERA tests were at higher Reynolds number range in the order of 10 million, while the WSU tests were in the order of 1 million. RANS CFD results for the lower-Reynolds 8.9% WSU model up to α = 10° were previously generated by University of Virginia and NASA Glenn Research Center using Ansys Fluent and k-ω SST on the clean and low-fidelity (smooth) iced wings. The current CFD study focuses on the high-fidelity ice shape, presenting RANS results for both low and high Reynolds numbers, for the full α sweep up to α = 25° for which there is experimental data on the iced wings. A straight-forward automatable CAD-to-solution workflow is established using surface curvature and proximity-based mesh sizing functions for grid generation. The simulations results include C<sub>L</sub>, C<sub>M</sub>, C<sub>D</sub> curves for both clean and iced wings, their comparison to the experimentally obtained counterparts, iced surface Cp distributions, and a detailed breakdown of the computational cost and user effort in generating these solutions.</div></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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.232 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSAE technical papers on CD-ROM/SAE technical paper seriesSame topicIcing and De-icing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207