MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4317633779 · doi:10.2514/6.2023-1619

A Deep-Learning Surrogate Model Approach for Optimization of Morphing Airfoils

2023· article· en· W4317633779 on OpenAlexaff
Hamidreza Karbasian, Wim M. van Rees

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA SCITECH 2023 Forum · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicModel Reduction and Neural Networks
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoFields Institute for Research in Mathematical Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMorphingComputer scienceAirfoilSurrogate modelDeep learningArtificial intelligenceMachine learningAerospace engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

View Video Presentation: https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2023-1619.vid Analyzing and optimizing the aerodynamic performance of a morphing airfoil concept typically requires the numerical solution of many complex, computationally expensive fluid-structure interaction (FSI) problems. This approach becomes intractable against current developments in intelligent, programmable materials and additive manufacturing techniques, which drastically increase the design space and open novel opportunities for passively and actively morphing wings. To fully exploit these capabilities, a new paradigm for analyzing and optimizing aeroelastic structures in high-dimensional parameter spaces is required. This work presents an efficient numerical design approach for elastically morphing structures in aerodynamic flows. Our approach centers on using deep neural network surrogate models to predict the aerodynamic loading as a function of a given shape. The models are trained through a set of flow simulations around rigid stationary bodies randomly sampled from a parametrized design space of the shapes. Once trained, the surrogate model can be used to evaluate the aerodynamic performance of any structural design without the need for further costly flow or FSI simulations. Consequently, this approach can analyze and optimize airfoils within a higher-dimensional structure and structure-actuator problems than currently possible. Though the approach is general, we focus here on establishing a proof-of-concept of this idea for a 2D multi-hinged airfoil at a steady-state condition. The specific contributions are validating the surrogate model, estimating the cost benefits of this approach, and providing first insights into the approach's capabilities. A practical optimization of a 2D morphing airfoil in steady flows demonstrates that training and using the surrogate model reduces the number of required flow solutions by several orders of magnitude compared with a fully coupled FSI approach.

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)0.002
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIAA SCITECH 2023 ForumSame topicModel Reduction and Neural NetworksFrench-language works237,207