MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407414521 · doi:10.2514/6.2025-0484

Progress in the Application of an Aerodynamic Shape Optimization Capability Using Hybrid Laminar Flow Control to Airfoils and Infinite Swept Wings

2025· article· en· W4407414521 on OpenAlexaff
David W. Zingg

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Christian StudiesUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAirfoilAerodynamicsLaminar flowComputer scienceAerospace engineeringFlow control (data)Flow (mathematics)Swept wingControl theory (sociology)Control (management)MechanicsEngineeringPhysicsArtificial intelligenceTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The use of hybrid laminar flow control can extend the region of laminar flow on a wing at sweep angles and Reynolds numbers beyond those for which natural laminar flow is effective. In this paper, a suction boundary condition implemented in a Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes aerodynamic shape optimization framework coupled with the SA-sLM2015cc local correlation-based transition model is applied to lift-constrained drag-minimization of airfoils and wings. The transition location was determined for a supercritical airfoil, after which suction was applied upstream of this location. After determining the resulting transition location on the upper surface, suction is applied upstream of the new location while retaining the original suction location. By adding a second suction location at this new transition location, further drag reductions were obtained, indicating the successful application of multiple suction locations at varying suction velocities. The airfoil is then optimized with suction applied upstream of the baseline transition location, yielding a higher drag reduction compared to the optimization without the application of suction. Additionally, the airfoil was optimized without suction and the suction boundary condition was then applied upstream of the new transition location. These results indicated that the application of suction to an optimized geometry yields a higher drag reduction compared to the case where suction is applied to the baseline geometry, which is then optimized. To investigate the effect of suction on crossflow instabilities, an infinite swept wing is tested with suction added upstream at a single location on the upper surface, lower surface and both surfaces. This geometry was optimized with and without suction, and the results with suction yielded a higher drag reduction compared with those without. In contrast to the airfoil case without sweep, on the infinite swept wing when suction is applied to a geometry optimized without suction, the drag reduction is lower. These results demonstrate that the presented approach to modelling suction and transition provides a promising methodology to study and optimize wings for hybrid laminar flow control.

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)0.001
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.224 · 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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComputational Fluid Dynamics and AerodynamicsFrench-language works237,207