MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389541088 · doi:10.17118/11143/20860

Bayesian calibration of glaze ice surface roughness for aircraft iceaccretion simulation

2023· article· en· W4389541088 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin Ignatowicz, François Morency, Héloïse Beaugendre

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIcing and De-icing Technologies
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlazeSurface roughnessCalibrationAccretion (finance)Surface finishEnvironmental scienceGeologyMeteorologyMaterials sciencePhysicsAstrophysicsMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: In-flight ice accretion on aircraft surfaces is a major weather-related safety issue. Experimental studies in icing conditions or in cryogenic wind-tunnels are supported by numerical simulations involving computational fluid dynamics (CFD). An ice accretion solver couples airflow over the geometry, water droplets impingement, and phase change to compute the ice accretion shape. An ice accretion solver usually relies on a two-equation model: a mass balance and an energy balance. Past studies have established the importance of convective heat loss for energy balance, which is sensitive to the surface roughness. Uncertainties persist in the CFD models given the relative randomness and complexity of the phenomenon related to ice accretion, which usually mixes solid ice with liquid runback water (glaze ice). A major uncertainty is precisely related to the roughness pattern, which is difficult to establish in experimental setups. The calibration of the roughness pattern for a given test case has been seldom investigated in existing literature. Bayesian calibration constitutes a powerful data-driven approach to establish the roughness pattern from the experimental observation. Nevertheless, such Bayesian approach is rarely employed in the context of aircraft icing despite its wide applicability. Instead, the roughness pattern is usually computed with empirical correlations and the equivalent sand grain approach. Nevertheless, no scientific consensus has been reached on the methodology used to determine the roughness pattern. Moreover, classical approaches may fail to predict the roughness pattern in some icing conditions. The objective of the paper is to establish a methodology for the roughness pattern calibration on an airfoil in glaze ice conditions, including roughness distribution along the surface. More specifically, this methodology will determine the roughness pattern needed to be inputted in the simulation to obtain an accretion that best fits the experimental shape. First, an ice accretion solver implemented in SU2 CFD will be used to generate an ice shape database with several roughness patterns. Second, the database will be replaced by a Polynomial Chaos Expansion (PCE) metamodel. This metamodel estimates a mathematical relation between roughness characteristics and ice shape metrics, such as thickness or accretion limit. Finally, a Bayesian inversion will be performed on the metamodel to determine the calibrated roughness pattern. This calibration is obtained by providing experimental accretion metrics to the Bayesian solver. Such methodology produces promising results, giving a roughness pattern leading to an accretion with less than 5% of discrepancies with the experimental thickness, either locally measured or globally averaged.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.763
Threshold uncertainty score0.318

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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