MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2997416226 · doi:10.2514/6.2020-1998

Flutter Prediction using Reduced-Order Modeling

2020· article· en· W2997416226 on OpenAlexaff
Brandon M. Lowe, David W. Zingg

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA Scitech 2020 Forum · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicModel Reduction and Neural Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlutterAeroelasticityAerodynamicsAirfoilEuler equationsControl theory (sociology)Degrees of freedom (physics and chemistry)Eigenvalues and eigenvectorsApplied mathematicsComputer scienceMathematicsEngineeringMathematical analysisStructural engineeringPhysicsAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Typical aerodynamic shape and multidisciplinary optimization algorithms omit high-fidelity flutter predictions due to the associated computational costs. This paper presents a model order reduction framework as a step towards flutter constrained aircraft optimization. The Euler equations linearized about a steady-state solution are used as the governing unsteady flow equations. Using proper orthogonal decomposition, a reduced basis is constructed onto which the governing equations are projected. The result is a linear reduced-order model (ROM) with significantly fewer degrees of freedom capable of rapidly approximating aerodynamic forces. This ROM is coupled to a linear structural model to create a single monolithic aeroelastic system. The eigenvalues of the resulting system are analyzed for various flow conditions to determine the onset of flutter in the system. The flutter boundaries obtained for both a two degree of freedom airfoil structure and the AGARD 445.6 wing model show good agreement with the full-order model and with the literature.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIAA Scitech 2020 ForumSame topicModel Reduction and Neural NetworksFrench-language works237,207