MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4327956076 · doi:10.3390/aerospace10030302

Numerical Stabilization for Flutter Analysis Procedure

2023· article· en· W4327956076 on OpenAlexaff
Weixing Yuan, Xiaoyang Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueAerospace · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlutterSolverControl theory (sociology)AerodynamicsConvergence (economics)Computer scienceEigenvalues and eigenvectorsProcess (computing)Stability (learning theory)Mode (computer interface)AlgorithmMathematical optimizationApplied mathematicsMathematicsEngineeringAerospace engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Severe mode switching is often observed when the PK-method is used in the flutter analysis of complex aircraft configurations, in particular when nearly 100 vibrational modes are considered. In the commonly used commercial software NASTRAN, the resulting eigenroots are sorted in an ascending order of frequency. Therefore, the appearance of massive mode-switching instances cannot be avoided in the PK-method flutter analyses, especially for engineering applications with real-world complex configurations. In this study, as a post-processing procedure, an extensive sorting capability was developed in order to compensate for NASTRAN’s lack of a mode-tracking procedure in between the airspeed steps. The capability was developed based on both the complex eigenvalues and their corresponding eigenvectors. In addition, numerical techniques commonly used in computational fluid dynamics (CFD) were introduced to improve the convergence of the traditional PK-method. A hybrid approach was applied to the initial guess of the reduced frequency, followed by a deferred correction scheme for the PK-iteration process. Additionally, mode matching was specifically addressed when locking eigenroots onto the aerodynamics within the PK iterations. In addition to the PK iterations, a damping iteration or modified g-method was implemented by extending the PK-method solver. The combination of these special techniques effectively improved the numerical stability of the iterations in the stability eigensolution process and significantly reduced the appearance of the misleading mode switching, minimizing risks in aircraft flight.

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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.004

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations9
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAerospaceSame topicComputational Fluid Dynamics and AerodynamicsFrench-language works237,207