Surface Roughness in RANS Applied to Aircraft Ice Accretion Simulation: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Experimental and numerical fluid dynamics studies highlight a change of flow structure in the presence of surface roughness. The changes involve both wall heat transfer and skin friction, and are mainly restricted to the inner region of the boundary layer. Aircraft in-flight icing is a typical application where rough surfaces play an important role in the airflow structure and the subsequent ice growth. The objective of this work is to investigate how surface roughness is tackled in RANS with wall resolved boundary layers for aeronautics applications, with a focus on ice-induced roughness. The literature review shows that semi-empirical correlations were calibrated on experimental data to model flow changes in the presence of roughness. The correlations for RANS do not explicitly resolve the individual roughness. They principally involve turbulence model modifications to account for changes in the velocity and temperature profiles in the near-wall region. The equivalent sand grain roughness (ESGR) approach emerges as a popular metric to characterize roughness and is employed as a length scale for the RANS model. For in-flight icing, correlations were developed, accounting for both surface geometry and atmospheric conditions. Despite these research efforts, uncertainties are present in some specific conditions, where space and time roughness variations make the simulations difficult to calibrate. Research that addresses this gap could help improve ice accretion predictions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".