A Study on the Surrogate-Based Optimization of Flexible Wings Considering a Flutter Constraint
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accounting for aeroelastic phenomena, such as flutter, in the conceptual design phase is becoming more important as the trend toward increasing the wing aspect ratio forges ahead. However, this task is computationally expensive, especially when utilizing high-fidelity simulations and numerical optimization. Thus, the development of efficient computational strategies is necessary. With this goal in mind, this work proposes a surrogate-based optimization (SBO) methodology for wing design using a predefined machine learning model. For this purpose, a custom-made Python framework was built based on different open-source codes. The test subject was the classical Goland wing, parameterized to allow for SBO. The process consists of employing a Latin Hypercube Sampling plan and subsequently simulating the resulting wing on SHARPy to generate a dataset. A regression-based machine learning model is then used to build surrogate models for lift and drag coefficients, structural mass, and flutter speed. Finally, after validating the surrogate model, a multi-objective optimization problem aiming to maximize the lift-to-drag ratio and minimize the structural mass is solved through NSGA-II, considering a flutter constraint. This SBO methodology was successfully tested, reaching reductions of three orders of magnitude in the optimization computational time.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".