MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402688479 · doi:10.2514/6.2024-3781

Ice Crystal Fragmentation and Accretion on the Rotating Test Rig of ICE-MACR

2024· article· en· W4402688479 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
A. Rojano Aguilar, Rajani M Poornima, Somasree Roychowdhury, Yasir A. Malik, Vilas K Bokade, Paolo Vanacore, Steffen Jebauer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicIcing and De-icing Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFragmentation (computing)Accretion (finance)Ice crystalsGeologyMaterials scienceMarine engineeringMeteorologyPhysicsEngineeringComputer scienceAstrophysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the last decades turbofan engines have been experiencing undesirable in-flight events related to ingestion of ice crystals, such as power loss and compressor mechanical damage [8-9], hence FAA and EASA have issued engine certification regulations for the design of engines to operate in ice crystal conditions. To simulate the ice crystal icing (ICI) in an engine compressor environment, the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) developed the Ice Crystal Environment Modular Axial Compressor Rig (ICE-MACR) [1-3] consisting of single or 2-stage compressors followed by an extension duct and a S-duct with test article vanes. The MUSIC-haic project was a research and innovation action funded by the European Union through the H2020 program which aimed to build on past research projects and existing multi-disciplinary tools to provide the aeronautic industry with an ICI numerical capability usable for both design and certification purposes [22]. Under this context the present paper analyses three different rotational speeds for fragmentation and accretion predictions using GE’s in-house modeling tools. The fragmentation analysis involves 3D CFD aero simulation of the complete ICE-MACR single-stage airflow passage followed by Lagrangian particle tracking. The predictions from this analysis are comparable with test observations. For accretion predictions, GE’s inhouse Ice Crystal Accretion Tool (ICAT) [4] was used at different radial span locations on the test article vane and the final 3D ice shape was predicted using a pseudo-3D approach. The ice thickness and shape predictions are verified at different melt-ratios/severity regimes.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.526
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designBench or experimental
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 topicIcing and De-icing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207