MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388705578 · doi:10.30684/etj.2023.142873.1552

Enhancing Wind Tunnel Computational Simulations of Finite Element Analysis Using Machine Learning-Based Algorithms

2023· article· en· W4388705578 on OpenAlexaff
Luttfi A. Al-Haddad, Alaa Abdulhady Jaber, Latif Ibraheem, Sinan A. Al-Haddad, Naseem Ibrahim, Fawaz Abdulwahed

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering and Technology Journal · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAerodynamics and Fluid Dynamics Research
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupport vector machineMean squared errorFinite element methodAerodynamicsWind tunnelComputational fluid dynamicsComputer scienceMetric (unit)Flexibility (engineering)AlgorithmMachine learningArtificial intelligenceEngineeringStructural engineeringMathematicsAerospace engineeringStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wind tunnels are essential for examining aircraft model aerodynamics, accurately simulating real-world conditions, and enhancing design and performance evaluations. This study introduces a novel technique to improve the time and accuracy of stress distribution forecasts in wind tunnel simulations. This method combines Finite Element Analysis (FEA) with two regression models: Support Vector Machine (SVM) and k-Nearest Neighbors (kNN). The investigation begins with a thorough analysis of ANSYS fluent flow data, which reveals intricate fluid dynamics details within the wind tunnel. A comparative analysis of stress projections, supplemented by Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) metric, demonstrates the proposed methodology’s viability. High accuracy is noted in the SVM-based model, as evidenced by its 2.1% RMSE, which surpasses the kNN model's 5.6% RMSE. Notably, the stress distribution calculation took almost 2 hours in ANSYS.In contrast, it required only 10 seconds in SVM and 3 seconds in kNN, showcasing the time-efficient attributes of these models where they solely depend on the trained data. Moreover, the computational efficacy of the SVM and kNN models is highlighted, emphasizing their flexibility in stress analysis. This integrative approach introduces a promising potential in engineering simulations, yielding precise stress distribution forecasts that have the potential to advance aircraft design methodologies and wind tunnel evaluations.

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)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.245
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

Citations24
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEngineering and Technology JournalSame topicAerodynamics and Fluid Dynamics ResearchFrench-language works237,207