Computational investigation of the centerbody effects on the aerodynamics of delta wings
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computational aerodynamic studies were conducted to investigate the centerbody effects on the aerodynamic characteristics of delta wings with sharp leading edges. Vortical flows around IAR 65° delta and 55° diamond wings were simulated using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD). Two flow solvers were employed to compute steady inviscid flows over with and without centerbody configurations of the two wings. These two solvers are an IAR in-house code, FJ3SOLV, and the CFD-FASTRAN commercial software. The computed flow solutions of the two solvers have been compared and correlated against the IAR Pressure Sensitive Paint (PSP) measurements. The major features of the primary vortex were well captured and overall reasonable accuracy was obtained. In accordance with the experimental observations for the flow conditions considered, the CFD computations revealed no major global effects of the centerbody on the surface pressure distributions of the wings. However, CFD-FASTRAN seems to predict a vortex breakdown, which is neither predicted by FJ3SOLV nor observed in the wind tunnel for the simulated flow conditions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".