OPTIMAL GEOMETRICAL DESIGN OF AIRCRAFT USING GENETIC ALGORITHMS
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
With the advent of computers and search and optimization tools such as the genetic algorithm, the ability to manipulate numerous aircraft design parameters in a reasonable amount of time is feasible. From this angle, the lengthy time and effort spent creating and integrating aerodynamics codes, sizing routines, and performance modules, can be mitigated by the use of a genetic algorithm. Consequently, a genetic algorithm has been created and employed as a cost effective tool to explore possible aircraft geometries in the conceptual design process of the aircraft. A program has been developed to address most aspects of aircraft design such as aircraft sizing and configuration, performance, and propulsion, to name a few. These codes have been integrated into a genetic algorithm, which performs the task of searching and optimizing. The adaptive penalty method has been employed to handle all constraints imposed on the design. In addition, adjustments for varying degrees of selection and crossover intensities and types have been studied. A design study has also been carried out to compare an existing aircraft shape with the genetic algorithm optimized aircraft shape and configuration. Results indicate that the genetic algorithm is a powerful multi-disciplinary optimization and search tool, capable of simultaneously managing and varying numerous aircraft design parameters. Moreover, the genetic algorithm is capable of finding aircraft geometries and configurations that are both efficient and cost effective.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it