Optimal Design of a Biconvex Airfoil for a Supersonic Aircraft Using the Basin-Hopping and Exhaustive Search Methods
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, based on target design conditions, an airfoil is designed for a supersonic aircraft to achieve the maximum lift-to-wave drag ratio, with constraints on the lift coefficient, pitching moment, and maximum thickness. The coefficients of lift and wave drag are calculated numerically using shock/expansion wave theory. To solve the corresponding optimization problem, the Basin-Hopping algorithm—a method commonly used in computational chemical physics for determining minimum energy structures of molecules—is employed. To enhance the search for local extrema, the Sequential Least Squares Programming (SLSQP) method, known for handling constrained optimization problems, is integrated with the Basin-Hopping algorithm. For comparison and validation, the exhaustive search method, a simple technique that evaluates various combinations of design variables to find the optimal solution, is also applied. The results show that while the exhaustive search identifies the optimal design, the Basin-Hopping algorithm yields a slightly better design and requires only about 1/60 of the computation time. This work outlines the design process and demonstrates how advanced optimization algorithms can efficiently address engineering design challenges.
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it