Numerical study on effects of leading-edge manufacturing defects on cavitation performance of a full-scale propeller. I. Simulation for the model- and full-scale propellers without defect
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Paper I of this two-part paper focuses on predicting the open-water cavitation performance of the model- and full-scale propellers based on the geometry of David Taylor model basin 5168 propeller without leading-edge (LE) defect. Simulations were conducted using the three-dimensional (3D) steady Reynolds-Averaged Navier–Stokes solver in the commercial software package Star-CCM+. Effects of simulation parameters, including domain size, grid size, stretch ratio, first-grid spacing, y+, and turbulence model on the solutions were carefully examined and the best-practice settings for the model propeller and the full-scale propeller with no LE defect were developed. Validation studies were carried out for the propeller model against the experimental data. Results for the full-scale propeller were compared with those of the model-scale propeller. The differences in model and full-scale predictions are generally insignificant. To further confirm this finding, the scale effect was investigated with four additional scale ratios, λ = 2, 3, 4, and 5. The results showed that the scale effect is in general minimal and, therefore, the developed best-practice settings can be applied to the open-water simulation of the full-scale propeller. Paper II presents the simulation for the full-scale propellers with LE defects.
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".