MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412486865 · doi:10.2514/6.2025-3858

Turbulent Transition Model Validation with Multiple Rotors for Industry Application

2025· article· en· W4412486865 on OpenAlexaff
Byung-Young Min, Brian Wake

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFluid Dynamics and Turbulent Flows
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTurbulenceComputer scienceStatistical physicsMechanicsEnvironmental sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Langtry-Mentor transition model with k-w Shear Stress Transport (SST) model has been assessed for multiple rotors. In this assessment, an adverse impact of the sustaining term has been identified and a modification has been introduced. It was found that the original sustaining term behaved poorly for the separated flows investigated herein, making separation worse and leading to a premature stall in hover. The modified sustaining term uses F1-μ_t blending to deactivate the sustaining term inside boundary layer. The Langtry-Mentor transition model with the modified sustaining term has been validated for multiple rotors with various scales and characteristics, including the XV-15 rotor, the Hover Validation and Acoustic Baseline (HVAB) rotor, and Sikorsky’s model- and full-scale rotors. Helios, with OVERFLOW as near-body solver, was used for these calculations. The validation showed very good correlation with measured hover figure of merit data for all rotors from low thrust to high thrust conditions, using a consistent transition model and sustaining-term settings. It was found that the modified sustaining term removed the adverse impact of the original sustaining term.

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)0.002
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.200 · 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