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

Flutter Prediction using Reduced-Order Modeling

2020· article· en· W2997416226 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

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.

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 score0.603
Threshold uncertainty score0.694

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)0.0010.000

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