MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320963516 · doi:10.2514/6.2013-2583

Toward High-Fidelity Aerodynamic Shape Optimization for Natural Laminar Flow

2013· article· en· W2320963516 on OpenAlexaff
Ramy Rashad, David W. Zingg

Bibliographic record

Venue21st AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLaminar flowAerodynamicsComputer scienceHigh fidelityAerospace engineeringPhysicsEngineeringAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-fidelity aerodynamic shape optimization frameworks capable of efficiently incorporating and exploiting laminar-turbulent transition enable the design of aircraft with significantly reduced drag. This work presents recent progress toward that end. First, a two-dimensional Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) flow solver is extended to incorporate an iterative laminar-turbulent transition prediction methodology. The natural transition locations due to Tollmien-Schlichting instabilities are predicted using the compressible form of the Arnal-Habiballah-Delcourt criterion or alternatively, the simplified e envelope method of Drela and Giles. The boundary-layer properties are obtained directly from the Navier-Stokes flow solution and the transition to turbulent flow is modeled using an intermittency function. The RANS solver is subsequently employed in a gradient-based sequential quadratic programming shape optimization framework. The laminar-turbulent transition criteria are tightly coupled into the objective and gradient evaluations. The gradients are obtained using a parallelized finite-difference approximation. The proposed optimization framework is applied to the lift-constrained drag minimization of airfoils at various flight conditions, leading to natural laminar flow designs.

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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations12
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue21st AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics ConferenceSame topicComputational Fluid Dynamics and AerodynamicsFrench-language works237,207