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 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 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.

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 score0.763
Threshold uncertainty score0.902

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.003
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