MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320761638 · doi:10.2514/6.2013-1004

Optimization of Bezier Curves for High Speed Leading Edge Geometries

2013· article· en· W2320761638 on OpenAlexaff
Patrick E. Rodi

Bibliographic record

Venue51st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Numerical Analysis Techniques
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBézier curveLaminar flowDragLeading edgeEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionStagnation pointPoint (geometry)GeometryMathematical optimizationMathematicsMechanicsComputer sciencePhysicsHeat transferArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An evaluation of using Bezier Curves to create leading edge geometries for high speed vehicles, such as for hypersonic waveriders, has been performed. In such applications, Bezier Curves offer advantages over previously employed leading edge geometry approaches such as hemi-cylindrical or power-law curve based designs. Third-sixth order Bezier Curve Leading Edges have been generated and their performance quantified using a number of criteria including; pressure drag, surface pressure gradient, stagnation point heating, and laminar and turbulent acreage heating. Genetic Algorithms have been used to perform the optimization and have generated geometries for a number of cost function/constraint combinations. From this analysis it has been found that fourth order Bezier Curves offer the best combination of geometric flexibility and optimization performance for use in defining leading edges for high speed vehicles. Additionally, Pareto fronts of leading edge geometries have been created for combinations of influences such as stagnation point heating and pressure drag, and for either laminar or turbulent acreage heating.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.242 · 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

Citations22
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue51st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace ExpositionSame topicAdvanced Numerical Analysis TechniquesFrench-language works237,207