MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Nonlinear Aeroelasticity Computations in Transonic Flows Using Tightly Coupling Algorithms

2006· article· en· W2171799513 on OpenAlexaff
Zhengkun Feng, Azzeddine Soulaı ̈mani

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAeroelasticityTransonicDiscretizationEuler equationsNonlinear systemPolygon meshFinite element methodComputationEuler's formulaMathematicsApplied mathematicsCompressible flowComputer scienceAerodynamicsAlgorithmMathematical analysisGeometryCompressibilityPhysicsEngineeringMechanicsStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A nonlinear computational aeroelasticity model based on the Euler equations of compressible flows and the linear elastodynamic equations for structures is developed. The Euler equations are solved on dynamic meshes using the ALE kinematic description. Thus, the mesh constitutes another field governed by pseudo-elatodynamic equations. The three fields are discretized using proper finite element formulations which satisfy the geometric conservation law. A matcher module is incorporated for the purpose of pairing the grids on the fluid-structure interface and for transferring the loads and displacements between the fluid and structure solvers. Two solutions strategies (Gauss Seidel and Schur-Complement) for solving the nonlinear aeroelastic system are discussed. Using second order time discretization schemes allows us to use large time steps in the computations. The numerical results on the AGARD 445.6 aeroelastic wing compare well with the experimental ones and show that the Schur-complement coupling algorithm is more robust than the Gauss-Seidel algorithm for relatively large oscillation amplitudes.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.360
Threshold uncertainty score0.621

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.210 · 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
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

Citations4
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComputational Fluid Dynamics and AerodynamicsFrench-language works237,207