Aerodynamic Shape Optimization for Unsteady Flows: Some Benchmark Problems
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
We present an efficient aerodynamic shape optimization framework for optimization problems under unsteady flow conditions. The optimization framework consists of a parallel Newton-Krylov flow solver for multi-block grids and an integrated geometry parameterization and mesh-deformation algorithm based on linear elasticity. We apply the adjoint method to the discretized governing equations to compute the gradients required by the sequential quadratic programming optimization algorithm. We propose two lift constrained drag minimization problems for the purposes of testing and evaluating the framework. First, we consider a laminar flow airfoil optimization problem at a Reynolds number of 800 and also investigate the convexity of the optimization problem. We show that the optimizer is capable of reducing the drag for this problem by about 23% and produces a nearly steady flow compared to the vortex shedding observed for the baseline geometry at the required lift target. The second benchmark case is a lift-constrained drag minimization of an aspect ratio eight rectangular wing in a laminar flow at a Reynolds number of 800. Section shape, twist, and angle of attack are free. Although only partially converged at the time of writing, the preliminary results show a 20% drag reduction.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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