MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2073819788 · doi:10.2514/1.c032150

Multipoint High-Fidelity Aerostructural Optimization of a Transport Aircraft Configuration

2014· article· en· W2073819788 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Gaetan K. Kenway, Joaquim R. R. A. Martins

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aircraft · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAdvanced Aircraft Design and Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGovernment of OntarioCompute CanadaUniversity of TorontoNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsTakeoffAirfoilReduction (mathematics)AerodynamicsShape optimizationFinite element methodEngineeringControl theory (sociology)SimulationComputer scienceMathematicsStructural engineeringAerospace engineeringGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents multipoint high-fidelity aerostructural optimizations of a long-range wide-body transonic transport aircraft configuration. The aerostructural analysis employs Euler computational fluid dynamics with a 2-million-cell mesh and a structural finite-element model with 300,000 degrees of freedom. The coupled adjoint sensitivity method is used to efficiently compute gradients, enabling the use of gradient-based optimization with respect to hundreds of aerodynamic shape and structural sizing variables. The NASA Common Research Model is used as the baseline configuration, together with a wing box structure that was designed for this study. Two design optimization problems are solved: one where takeoff gross weight is minimized, and another where fuel burn is minimized. Each optimization uses a multipoint formulation with five cruise conditions and two maneuver conditions. Each of the optimization problems have 476 design variables, including wing planform, airfoil shape, and structural thickness variables. Optimized results are obtained within 36 h of wall time using 435 processors. The resulting optimal configurations are discussed and analyzed for the aerostructural tradeoffs resulting from each objective. The takeoff gross weight minimization results in a 4.2% reduction in takeoff gross weight with a 6.6% fuel burn reduction, whereas the fuel-burn optimization resulted in an 11.2% fuel burn reduction with no significant change in the takeoff gross weight.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

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 science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations376
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AircraftSame topicAdvanced Aircraft Design and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207