MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389584793 · doi:10.17118/11143/20868

Aerodynamic optimization of eVTOL rotor profiles

2023· article· en· W4389584793 on OpenAlexaff
Firoozeh Yeganehdoust, Hamidreza Karbasian, Brian C. Vermeire

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAdvanced Aircraft Design and Technologies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAerodynamicsRotor (electric)Computer scienceAerospace engineeringControl theory (sociology)EngineeringMechanical engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract: Electric Vertical Take-Off and Landing (eVTOL) aircraft are currently being developed to fill a gap in the air transportation sector and, simultaneously, provide zero-emissions alternatives to current generation carbon-intensive short-haul aircraft. However, unlike conventional fixed-wing or rotary aircraft, eVTOL rotors operate in both hover and forward flight configurations. This significantly increases the range of operating conditions experienced by the rotor, introducing multiple aerodynamic design challenges. Additionally, the efficiency of these rotors is particularly important, since it has a direct impact on power draw and aircraft range. In this presentation, a classical airfoil, the ClarkY, is used as a baseline configuration for an eVTOL rotor section. A gradient-based optimization framework using an adjoint solver in Discrete Adjoint with OpenFOAM (DAFoam) with the Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) approach is then used. In this study, a control point-based free form deformation (FFD) method is used in the framework in order to change the aerodynamic shape. The objective function for this optimization is the lift-to-drag ratio, with additional target lift and geometric constraints. The baseline design is first validated against experimental data, and then the optimization is completed for several target lift coefficient values. Results demonstrate that the lift-to-drag ratio can be increased significantly while maintaining the desired target lift coefficient. Preliminary results for complete rotor optimization using RANS will then be presented, followed by preliminary airfoil optimization using Large Eddy Simulation (LES).

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.327
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Aircraft Design and TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207