MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401941073 · doi:10.1115/gt2024-129243

Calibration and Validation of a Novel Particle Rebound and Deposition Model

2024· article· en· W4401941073 on OpenAlexaff
Lei‐Yong Jiang, Prakash Patnaik, Masaya Suzuki

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicParticle Dynamics in Fluid Flows
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCalibrationDeposition (geology)Particle (ecology)Computer scienceModel validationEnvironmental scienceGeologyStatisticsData scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Environmental particles (e.g., sand, volcanic ash and other airborne dust) ingested into a gas turbine engine can significantly reduce engine performance, and even lead to complete power loss. This is particularly true for helicopters during taking-off, hovering, and landing. To predict this degradation quantitatively, a novel particle rebound/deposition model has been developed based on measured particle rebound characteristics and non-dimensional parameter analysis from more than seventy particle deposition tests relevant to engine hot-sections. The model was calibrated/validated with the experimental data, where sand particles impinged on square ceramic coupons at a velocity of 215 m/s and a temperature range of 1300–1580 K. Numerical simulations were carried out for these testing cases, and the particle impact rate on the coupon for each test case was obtained with a user defined function. With the particle impact rates on the coupon, the experimental particle deposition rates based on the total released particles, and the operating conditions, the coefficient of a defined model formulation was obtained. The calibrated rebound and deposition model was compiled and linked to the flow solver, and the predicted results were in good agreement with the experimental data. With added model functions, the distributions of deposited particle parameters on the coupon surface are provided.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.662
Threshold uncertainty score0.173

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 head0.238
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicParticle Dynamics in Fluid FlowsFrench-language works237,207