MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3184005040 · doi:10.2514/6.2021-3028

Aerodynamic Shape Optimization for Unsteady Flows With Application to Laminar Flows

2021· article· en· W3184005040 on OpenAlexaff
Kwesi P. Apponsah, David W. Zingg

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA AVIATION 2021 FORUM · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDragAirfoilLift-to-drag ratioMathematicsLift coefficientLaminar flowMathematical optimizationLift (data mining)Computer scienceMechanicsGeometryPhysicsReynolds number

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

View Video Presentation: https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2021-3028.vid An aerodynamic shape optimization framework for unsteady flow is applied to a range of two- and three-dimensional laminar flows. The shape optimization framework uses free-form deformation for geometry control with an underlying B-spline surface parameterization integrated with an efficient mesh deformation method. The mesh deformation is based on the linear elasticity method applied to a B-spline control volume parameterization of the mesh. A parallel implicit Newton-Krylov algorithm is used to solve the discretized flow equations and the discrete adjoint methodology is applied to both the flow and the mesh-movement algorithms to compute the gradient. For the two-dimensional studies, we consider three objectives based on the mean aerodynamic quantities: lift-constrained drag minimization, lift-to-drag ratio maximization, and lift maximization. For the drag minimization and lift-to-drag ratio maximization problems, the optimizer improved the performance of the baseline airfoil primarily by keeping the flow on the upper surface attached as long as possible and also pushing the camber towards the trailing edge to increase or maintain the lift coefficient. The optimizer improved the drag minimization objective by more than 20% and the lift-to-drag ratio maximization objective by about 50% for roughly the same initial drag. We also investigate the impact of design variable scaling on the convergence of the lift-maximization problem. For the three-dimensional studies, we consider a minimization of mean drag at a fixed mean lift, and we allow section shape, aerodynamic twist about the quarter-chord, and the chord length to vary along the span of the wing. The optimizer exploits all of the geometric freedom given to improve the design objective while satisfying the constraints imposed and produces some non-intuitive geometric changes, especially with respect to the wing planform.

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)0.001
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.196 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIAA AVIATION 2021 FORUMSame topicComputational Fluid Dynamics and AerodynamicsFrench-language works237,207