MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407413409 · doi:10.2514/6.2025-1846

Turbulent Transition Impact to Production Design Model- and Full-Scale Hovering Rotor Performance

2025· article· en· W4407413409 on OpenAlexaff
Byung-Young Min, Brian Wake, Peter F. Lorber

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRotor (electric)TurbulenceScale (ratio)Computer scienceProduction (economics)Transition (genetics)Aerospace engineeringEngineeringMechanicsPhysicsMechanical engineeringEconomicsMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Impact of laminar-turbulent flow transition to hovering rotor performance is assessed using both model- and full-scale rotors. Helios is used for all simulations using OVERFLOW as a near-body solver. The Langtry-Mentor transition model is validated against Hover Validation and Acoustic Baseline (HVAB) rotor test data using industry best practice modeling approach. The same modeling approach is validated with model-scale production design rotor to assess its applicability to different blade design including different airfoils, twist, and planform shape. The validated modeling approach is then used for full-scale rotor to assess impact of transition for high Reynolds-number full-scale rotor performance. The full-scale rotor performance is also compared with whirl-tower test data. For all three rotors, rotor figure of merit is compared for range of thrust against test data. Transition locations and blade loading distributions are also compared. Sensitivity studies were also performed including facility impact, control system stiffness effect, and wind impact. The current transition modeling approach showed very good correlation with both model-scale test data in integrated figure of merit. However, differences with test data were observed in detailed blade loading and surface suction pressure at outboard region where blade-vortex interaction occurs. The full-scale rotor simulation also showed reasonably good correlation in performance but with simulation results being slightly optimistic in both fully turbulent and transition model, with transition model being little more optimistic. The laminar-turbulent flow transition trend from model- to full-scale seems reasonable, although, with more uncertainties in the full-scale test results, it was hard to determine quantitative transition model impact validation. Findings from current study is used to guide future hover performance simulations, and to understand model- and full-scale rotor performance difference.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent FlowsFrench-language works237,207