MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2060070543 · doi:10.2514/1.j052487

Parallel Newton–Krylov–Schur Flow Solver for the Navier–Stokes Equations

2013· article· en· W2060070543 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA Journal · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKrylov subspacePreconditionerSolverMathematicsTransonicNavier–Stokes equationsGeneralized minimal residual methodMultigrid methodDiscretizationApplied mathematicsNewton's methodIterative methodMathematical optimizationComputer scienceAerodynamicsMathematical analysisNonlinear systemPartial differential equationCompressibilityPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of the present paper is to demonstrate the effectiveness of a spatial discretization based on summation-by-parts operators with simultaneous approximation terms in combination with a parallel Newton–Krylov–Schur algorithm for solving the three-dimensional Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes equations coupled with the Spalart–Allmaras one-equation turbulence model. The algorithm employs second-order summation-by-parts operators on multiblock structured grids with simultaneous approximation terms to enforce block interface coupling and boundary conditions. The discrete equations are solved iteratively with an inexact-Newton method, while the linear system at each Newton iteration is solved using a flexible Krylov subspace iterative method with an approximate-Schur parallel preconditioner. The algorithm is verified and validated through the solution of two-dimensional model problems, highlighting the correspondence of the current algorithm with several established flow solvers. A transonic solution over the ONERA M6 wing on a mesh with 15.1 million nodes shows good agreement with experiment. Using 128 processors, the residual is reduced by 12 orders of magnitude in 86 min. The solution of transonic flow over the common research model wing–body geometry exhibits the expected grid convergence behavior. The algorithm performs well in solving flows around nonplanar geometries and flows with explicitly specified laminar-to-turbulent transition locations. Parallel scaling studies highlight the excellent scaling characteristics of the algorithm on cases with up to 6656 processors and grids with over 150 million nodes.

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.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.922
Threshold uncertainty score0.353

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.203 · 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