MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392385546 · doi:10.1186/s42774-023-00163-z

Some effects of domain size and boundary conditions on the accuracy of airfoil simulations

2024· article· en· W4392385546 on OpenAlex
Narges Golmirzaee, David Wood

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Aerodynamics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Vibration Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAirfoilAlgorithmComputer scienceGeometryArtificial intelligenceMaterials scienceMathematicsPhysicsMechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper investigates a specific case of one of the most popular fluid dynamic simulations, the incompressible flow around an airfoil (NACA 0012 here) at a high Reynolds number ( $$6 \times 10^6$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:mn>6</mml:mn> <mml:mo>×</mml:mo> <mml:msup> <mml:mn>10</mml:mn> <mml:mn>6</mml:mn> </mml:msup> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> ). OpenFOAM software was used to study the effect of domain size and four common choices of boundary conditions on airfoil lift, drag, surface friction, and pressure. We also examine the relation between boundary conditions and the velocity, pressure, and vorticity distributions throughout the domain. In addition to the common boundary conditions, we implement the “point vortex” boundary condition that was introduced many years ago but is now rarely used. We also applied the point vortex condition for the outlet pressure instead of using the traditional Neumann condition. With the airfoil generating significant lift at incidence angles of $$5^\circ , 10^\circ$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:mrow> <mml:msup> <mml:mn>5</mml:mn> <mml:mo>∘</mml:mo> </mml:msup> <mml:mo>,</mml:mo> <mml:msup> <mml:mn>10</mml:mn> <mml:mo>∘</mml:mo> </mml:msup> </mml:mrow> </mml:math> , and $$14^\circ$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"> <mml:msup> <mml:mn>14</mml:mn> <mml:mo>∘</mml:mo> </mml:msup> </mml:math> , we confirm a previous finding that the boundary conditions combine with domain size to produce an induced (pressure) drag. The change in the pressure drag with domain size is significant for the commonly-used boundary conditions but is much smaller for the point vortex alternative. The point vortex boundary condition increases the execution time, but this is more than offset by the reduction in domain size needed to achieve a specified accuracy in the lift and drag. This study also estimates the error in total drag and lift due to domain size and shows it can be almost eliminated using the point vortex boundary condition. We also used the impulse form of the momentum equations to study the relation between drag and lift and spurious vorticity, which is generated as a result of using non-exact boundary conditions. These equations reveal that the spurious vorticity throughout the domain is associated with cancelling circulation around the domain boundaries.

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.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.210
Threshold uncertainty score0.288

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.239 · 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