MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403243192 · doi:10.1115/1.4066811

Multifidelity Aeromechanical Design Framework for High Flow Speed Multistage Axial Compressors

2024· article· en· W4403243192 on OpenAlexaff
Rémy Nigro, Lieven Baert, Florence Nyssen, Jean de Cazenove, Joachim Dominique, Ingrid Lepot, Monica Veglio, Rémy Princivalle

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Turbomachinery · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTurbomachinery Performance and Optimization
Canadian institutionsSafran Electronics (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAxial compressorGas compressorComputer scienceHigh fidelityFidelityFlow (mathematics)MechanicsMechanical engineeringEngineeringPhysicsElectrical engineeringTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The development of novel engine architectures is vital in achieving the aviation sector’s net-zero carbon emission target by 2050. With today’s digital decade providing support for an accelerated technology maturation, the challenge for turbomachinery design remains to significantly push the limits of current performance within an ambitious development lead time. In this context, it is essential to adopt a design framework where the predictive models or simulations employed target a sufficiently reliable performance assessment. These models must be tailored to the dynamics of an evolving industrial design process and therefore continuously balance required design flexibility, robust evaluation, appropriate fidelity (i.e., the level of detail and accuracy they provide), and resulting evaluation time. This article discusses a framework for designing axial compressors and its application to the aeromechanical optimization of a high-speed compressor rotor. The design environment integrates geometry parametrization, a modular evaluation with different levels of fidelity for the aerodynamic and structural models, and surrogate-based optimization (SBO) capabilities. It is shown how the combination of a modular sequencing of the different models and the acceleration enabled by high-performance computing (HPC) and machine learning allows for a more advanced preliminary design. A significant gain in isentropic efficiency is attained while satisfying all structural constraints. At the same time, it is demonstrated that the framework is compatible with the characteristics of the preliminary design phase: both in its ability to adapt to cycle and design changes as well as regarding the turnaround time of the optimization itself.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.639
Threshold uncertainty score0.948

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.244 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of TurbomachinerySame topicTurbomachinery Performance and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207