MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2463867895 · doi:10.2514/1.c033573

Efficient Reduced-Radial Basis Function-Based Mesh Deformation Within an Adjoint-Based Aerodynamic Optimization Framework

2016· article· en· W2463867895 on OpenAlexafffund
Vincent Poirier, Siva Nadarajah

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aircraft · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersOffice National d'études et de Recherches AérospatialesNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAerodynamicsDragPolygon meshShape optimizationMesh generationComputer scienceLift (data mining)Radial basis functionAdaptive mesh refinementMathematicsMathematical optimizationGeometryMechanicsFinite element methodPhysicsEngineeringStructural engineeringComputational science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mesh deformation schemes play an important role in numerical aerodynamic optimization. As the aerodynamic shape changes, the computational mesh must adapt to conform to the deformed geometry. This work presents an extension to an existing fast and robust radial basis function mesh movement scheme. Using a reduced set of surface points to define the mesh deformation increases the efficiency of the radial basis function method; however, it does so at the cost of introducing errors into the parameterization by not recovering the exact displacement of all surface points. A secondary mesh movement is implemented, within an adjoint-based optimization framework, to eliminate these errors. The mesh sensitivity is based on a combination of both the primary and secondary mesh movement schemes. The proposed scheme is demonstrated through three cases within a three-dimensional Euler flow: 1) the reduction of pressure drag at constant lift on the Onera M6 wing; 2) an inverse pressure design on the Onera M6; and 3) a drag minimization of the Boeing 747 wing-body aircraft.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.497
Threshold uncertainty score0.659

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.198 · 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

Citations25
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AircraftSame topicComputational Fluid Dynamics and AerodynamicsFrench-language works237,207