MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2033611608 · doi:10.2514/1.j052255

Scalable Parallel Approach for High-Fidelity Steady-State Aeroelastic Analysis and Adjoint Derivative Computations

2014· article· en· W2033611608 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Gaetan K. Kenway, Graeme Kennedy, Joaquim R. R. A. Martins

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of TorontoGovernment of OntarioCompute Canada
KeywordsAeroelasticityAerodynamicsFinite element methodComputer scienceComputationSizingConvergence (economics)Adjoint equationComputational fluid dynamicsMathematical optimizationApplied mathematicsRate of convergenceScalabilityMathematicsAlgorithmEngineeringStructural engineeringAerospace engineeringMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aeroelastic systems achieve the best performance when the aerodynamic shape and structural sizing are optimized concurrently, but such an optimization is challenging when high-fidelity aerodynamic and structural models are required. This paper addresses this challenge through several significant improvements. Fully coupled Newton–Krylov methods are presented for the solution of aerostructural systems and for the corresponding adjoint systems. The coupled adjoint method presented can compute gradients with respect to thousands of multidisciplinary design variables accurately and efficiently. This is enabled by several improvements in the computation of the multidisciplinary terms in the coupled adjoint. The parallel scalability of the methods is demonstrated for a full aircraft configuration using an Euler computational fluid dynamics model with more than state variables and a detailed structural finite element model of the wing with more than degrees of freedom. The coupled Newton–Krylov methods are shown to improve the convergence rate of both the aerostructural solution and the coupled adjoint derivative computations. Gradient computations of aerodynamic and structural functions with respect to both aerodynamic shape and structural sizing variables are verified, and scaling is demonstrated to variables. The accuracy and scalability of the presented methods make it possible to perform aerostructural optimizations of full aircraft configurations with respect to hundreds of external shape and structural sizing design variables, leading to optimal aeroelastic tailoring.

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)0.000
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.205 · 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

Citations297
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIAA JournalSame topicComputational Fluid Dynamics and AerodynamicsFrench-language works237,207