MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091051234 · doi:10.2514/1.j053575

Two-Level Free-Form and Axial Deformation for Exploratory Aerodynamic Shape Optimization

2015· article· en· W2091051234 on OpenAlexaff
Hugo Gagnon, David W. Zingg

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShape optimizationWingtip deviceAerodynamicsSolverMorphingTransonicDeformation (meteorology)Computer scienceMathematicsStructural engineeringMathematical optimizationMechanicsFinite element methodEngineeringMaterials sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An intuitive shape parameterization and control technique suitable for high-fidelity aerodynamic shape optimization is presented. It relies on the principles of free-form and axial deformation, enabling thorough exploration of the design space while keeping the number of design variables manageable. Surface sensitivities to the design variables are readily available; their inclusion in a highly efficient and robust adjoint-based optimization methodology involving linearly elastic volume mesh deformation and a Newton–Krylov solver for the Euler equations is described. The flexibility of the proposed approach is demonstrated through the exploratory shape optimization of a three-pronged feathered winglet, leading to a span efficiency of 1.19 under a height-to-span ratio constraint of 0.1, and an optimization of a regional jet wing at transonic speed where a winglet is allowed to develop starting from a planar wingtip extension, leading to an 18.8% reduction in drag.

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)0.001
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.229
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

Citations80
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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