MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2333651006 · doi:10.2514/6.2015-0282

hp-adaptive time integration for ALE simulation of Fluid-Structure Interaction problems

2015· article· en· W2333651006 on OpenAlexaff
Alexander Hay, Stéphane Étienne, Dominique Pelletier, André Garon

Bibliographic record

Venue53rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicNumerical methods for differential equations
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceFluid simulationFluid–structure interactionDistributed computingMechanicsPhysicsFinite element methodThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present an adaptive algorithm for time integration of fluid-structure integration problems. The method relies on a fully coupled procedure to solve FSI problems in which a naturally GCL-compliant ALE formulation for the finite-element spatial discretization is used. The main originality of the proposed solution procedure is that time integration is performed using automatic order and stepsize selections (hp-adaptivity) based on the Backward Differentiation Formulas (BDF). The stepsize selection is based on a local error estimate, an error controller and a step rejection mechanism. It guarantees that the solution precision is within the user tolerance. The order selection is driven by a stability test and a quarantine mechanism. The selection is performed to ensure that no other methods within the family of BDF methods would produce a solution of the prescribed target precision with a larger stepsize (and thus a lower computational time). The time adaptive algorithm behaviors and performances are assessed on the vortex-induced translational and rotational vibrations of a square cylinder and on the wake-induced vibrations of 3 cylinders in an in-line arrangement. The algorithm yields substantial CPU time savings (compared to constant stepsize and constant order integration) while delivering solutions of prescribed accuracies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.589
Threshold uncertainty score0.599

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.187
GPT teacher head0.409
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue53rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences MeetingSame topicNumerical methods for differential equationsFrench-language works237,207