High-fidelity aerodynamic modeling of an aircraft using OpenFoam – application on the CRJ700
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".