On the simulation of a wing with detached end-plates using an actuator line based on an anisotropic Gaussian kernel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The results of an actuator line method (ALM) using an anisotropic Gaussian kernel for both, velocity sampling and force projection, are compared to the wall-resolved results of a NACA 0015 rectangular wing at an angle of attack of 10°. The rectangular wing is simulated both, with and without, detached end-plates to show that the ALM is capable of accounting for the presence of a narrow gap of 0.01 c between the tip of the wing and the end-plate. The anisotropic kernel shape is varied in the chordwise, thickness-wise, and spanwise directions for different grid sizes and number of actuating points. The body forces are truncated and regularized to enforce proper spacing between the actuating line and the end-plate. ALM and wall-resolved results are compared on the basis of the integrated lift and drag coefficients, the sectional lift and drag coefficients, as well as the tip vortex core size, position, and circulation. Recommendations are made regarding the optimal kernel shape for a given number of actuating points and mesh resolution.
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 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".