MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408487214 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu25-16019

Numerical investigation of installation effects on condensation trail evolution during the vortex phase.

2025· preprint· en· W4408487214 on OpenAlexaff
Rémy Annunziata, Nicolas Bonne, François Garnier, Marc Massot

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and Detonation Processes
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVortexCondensationPhase (matter)MechanicsAerospace engineeringPhysicsComputer scienceMeteorologyEngineeringQuantum mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Condensation trails (contrails) contribute significantly to the non-CO₂ climate impacts of aviation, with their effect estimated to be up to twice that of CO₂ emissions (Lee et al., 2021). Under specific atmospheric conditions, contrails can persist for several hours, potentially spanning tens of hours. To develop effective strategies for mitigating their climate impact, it is essential to investigate the processes that underlie their formation and evolution.The formation and evolution of contrails are influenced by various factors, including the aircraft generating them (Unterstrasser et al., 2014). A recent study by Saulgeot et al. (2023) demonstrated that engine position affects the radiative properties of induced contrails. However, this analysis was based on a 2D assumption and initiated calculations at the onset of the vortex phase. Building on and extending this work, we present a 3D numerical study of contrail evolution during the vortex phase for different engine positions. Large-Eddy Simulations (LES) are initialized using Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) simulations conducted in the near-field of a realistic aircraft geometry, representative of a Boeing 777.Three distinct engine positions are analyzed: one at 34% of the wingspan (typical of B-777 or A-320), another at 60% (outboard engine of a B-747), and a more academic configuration at 80%. The latter position aligns the propulsive jet with the wingtip vortex position, as predicted by elliptical wing loading theory, and represent the optimal configuration in the 2D study. Initialization involves extruding a slice of the RANS domain, obtained from prior simulations, onto the LES domain over a length corresponding to the wavelength of Crow instabilities, using the methodology developed by Bouhafid et al. (2024). This approach allows for the simulation of both contrail formation and its subsequent evolution over longer timescales. Microphysical processes, including soot-induced condensation, are modeled using an Eulerian approach (Khou et al., 2015). The simulations will extend up to 5 minutes after the effluent is ejected from the engine.Simulation results reveal distinct aerodynamic behaviors, particularly in the lifetime of vortex dipoles, which are influenced by variations in jet proximity to wingtip vortices. These differences affect the resulting plumes, influencing both their spatial dispersion and the microphysical properties within them. As a result, the three configurations show variations in ice crystal radii and survival rates. These differences, in turn, impact the optical properties of the contrails, particularly their optical thickness.

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 score0.277
Threshold uncertainty score0.681

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 head0.245
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 topicCombustion and Detonation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207