High-fidelity aerodynamic modeling of an aircraft using OpenFoam – application on the CRJ700
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
Abstract This study is focused on the development of longitudinal aerodynamic models for steady flight conditions. While several commercial solvers are available for this type of work, we seek to evaluate the accuracy of an open source software. This study aims to verify and demonstrate the accuracy of the OpenFoam solver when it is used on basic computers (32–64GB of RAM and eight cores). A new methodology was developed to show how an aerodynamic model of an aircraft could be designed using OpenFoam software. The mesh and the simulations were designed only using OpenFoam utilities, such as blockMesh , snappyHexMesh , simpleFoam and rhoSimpleFoam . For the methodology illustration, the process was applied to the Bombardier CRJ700 aircraft and simulations were performed for its flight envelope, up to M0.79. Forces and moments obtained with the OpenFoam model were compared with an accurate flight data source (level D flight simulator). Excellent results in data agreement were obtained with a maximum absolute error of 0.0026 for the drag coefficient, thus validating a high-fidelity aerodynamic model for the Bombardier CRJ-700 aircraft.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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