MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406610559 · doi:10.11159/jffhmt.2025.001

On the Assessment of the Modified SSTCCM Turbulence Model to Predict Flow around 3D Delta Wing

2025· article· en· W4406610559 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yaser H. Alahmadi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Fluid Flow Heat and Mass Transfer · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersIslamic University of Madinah
KeywordsDelta wingTurbulenceDeltaWingFlow (mathematics)GeologyMechanicsAerospace engineeringPhysicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Various turbulence models have been developed to simulate aerodynamic flows.The eddy viscosity models (EVMs) are commonly implemented to close the Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations, allow them to be the most popular choice for solving aerodynamic problems.EVMs are particularly valued for their robustness and computational efficiency.However, the objectives of achieving both robustness and accuracy in turbulence model development remain a formidable challenge.This study evaluates the performance of a recently developed EVM model in analysing external flows around the NACA0012 airfoil and a 3D Delta wing.Specifically, it examines the effectiveness of the Shear Stress Transport Model with Curvature Correction Modification (SSTCCM) in predicting the flow characteristics of external aerodynamic configurations.Earlier investigations have demonstrated the capability of the SSTCCM model to accurately predict confined swirling flows, such as those in cyclone separators, rotating lids, and sudden expansions.However, the model has yet to be tested in cases involving external flows, where aerodynamic geometry greatly affects the flow behaviour.This study investigates the ability of the SSTCCM model to numerically predict the behavior of external aerodynamic flows.The computational results are compared against experimental data and validated against other EVMs models.The findings show that the SSTCCM model offers a competitive alternative in computational efficiency and superior to conventional EVMs models in terms of accuracy.Conventional EVMs failed to predict lift and drag coefficients accurately, particularly near the stall angle of attack.Moreover, the SSTCCM model successfully captured the wing tip vortices in the 3D Delta wing simulations, highlighting its accurate predictive capabilities for complex flow features.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.414
Threshold uncertainty score0.496

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.213 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Fluid Flow Heat and Mass TransferSame topicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent FlowsFrench-language works237,207