MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391329988 · doi:10.2514/6.2024-2331

S-Duct with Boundary Layer Ingestion: Geometry Optimization and Validation

2024· article· en· W4391329988 on OpenAlexaffabout
Catherine E. Clark, Faezeh Rasimarzabadi, Hamza Abo El Ella, Hugo Breton, Ines Chikhaoui, David W. Zingg

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTurbomachinery Performance and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeometryBoundary layerComputer scienceMathematicsMechanicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The National Research Council Canada Aerospace Research Centre is collaborating with the University of Toronto Institute for Aerospace Studies to develop an experimentally-validated numerical optimization tool that produces a propulsor intake geometry optimized to minimize circumferential flow distortion and pressure losses. The goal is to eventually apply this tool to the design of future low-emission aircraft concepts that incorporate S-ducts with boundary layer ingestion. The first phase of testing, which did not include a fan, was completed in the NRC’s Gas Turbine Lab Test Cell 1. After the empty test rig pressure calibrations and boundary layer generator calibrations, the main test program was completed by measuring the pressure distribution over the S-duct inlet and outlet areas, as well as various locations within the interior of the S-duct. The measurements were completed at inlet speeds of Mach 0.16 and Mach 0.19, and inlet boundary layer thicknesses varying from 20% to 69%. The experimental data shows good agreement with the CFD predictions, confirming the ability of the optimization algorithm to produce an optimized S-duct geometry with low circumferential flow distortion. The results include a discussion on the sensitivity of the S-duct performance to inlet boundary layer thickness and Mach number.

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 score0.735
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.198 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTurbomachinery Performance and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207