MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2102656444

CFD Based Wing Shape Optimization Through Gradient-Based Method

2008· article· en· W2102656444 on OpenAlexaff
Manuel García, Pierre Boulanger, Santiago Giraldo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAirfoilComputational fluid dynamicsAerodynamicsShape optimizationComputer scienceParametrization (atmospheric modeling)WingDomain (mathematical analysis)Boundary (topology)Mathematical optimizationMathematicsAerospace engineeringEngineeringMathematical analysisStructural engineeringFinite element method
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

a low-cost alternative to evaluate its performance. This paper presents and discusses a method for the numerical evaluation of a given shape and its possible optimization regarding its aerodynamic performance. The computational domain is obtained by means of a b-spline curve shape parametrization, the control points are described in an input le and 2D geometry is constructed with a 2D mesher. A valid CFD domain is obtained from constructing a 3D geometry from the 2D information, additional parameters and a volumetric mesher. The aerodynamic information is obtained by solving the Navier-Stokes equations using the OpenFOAM (Opensource Field Operation And Manipulation) toolkit. The method is particularly useful to narrow a design search space for an aerodynamic shape, in which case the proof of concept that this paper presents is an airfoil. This model could be used for initial approximations to improve aerodynamic behavior of a given shape. CFD simulation could deliver accurate predictions of how a given shape would perform under various boundary conditions, characteristic that makes this method more attractive. This type of multidisciplinary design optimizations have been implemented lately and can be implemented to various industrial applications as seen in [5] and [6].

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 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score0.570

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations11
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComputational Fluid Dynamics and AerodynamicsFrench-language works237,207