MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206354313 · doi:10.2514/6.2022-2575

Aerodynamic Shape Optimization of Camber Morphing Airfoil based on Black Widow Optimization

2022· article· en· W4206354313 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 SCITECH 2022 Forum · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAirfoilMorphingCamber (aerodynamics)Lift-to-drag ratioAerodynamicsAerospace engineeringNACA airfoilClimbAngle of attackComputer scienceDragEngineeringMechanicsTurbulencePhysicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

View Video Presentation: https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2022-2575.vid While the conventional control surface-based morphing method is well-developed and widely used on modern aircraft, it is insufficiently effective across the flight envelope. Specifically, aircraft such as UAVs may be expected to perform well at a wide range of flight conditions due to multi-mission flight envelopes. Morphing systems could be a solution to this problem because they allow the aircraft to modify its shape to offer the best aerodynamic performance in any given flight condition. The present study describes a continuous camber morphing airfoil design optimization for the UAS-45 wing using the Modified Akima piecewise cubic Hermite interpolation (Makima) parameterization technique. The design technique is simple and effectively controls the geometry in terms of morphing shape flexibility. Out of the optimization algorithms tested, the BWO is used in this study due to its best performance. The optimizations are performed to maximize the lift-to-drag ratio for cruise and climb flight conditions, respectively and determine the impact of different applied constraints on the accuracy of the optimization. Computational fluid dynamics simulation is used to validate the aerodynamic performance of the camber morphing airfoil. The results show that the optimized configurations outperform the baseline airfoil designs, increasing the lift-to-drag ratio from 48.53 to 86.52 for optimized airfoil relative to a baseline airfoil at cruise flight conditions. It also shows that the lift-to-drag ratio improves at climb flight conditions. Flow field analysis reveals that the continuous morphing method can delay flow separation in some situations.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.182 · 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