REVIEW 2 cited by
Deep Learning Methods for Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes Simulations of Airfoil Flows
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
With this study we investigate the accuracy of deep learning models for the inference of Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes solutions. We focus on a modernized U-net architecture, and evaluate a large number of trained neural networks with respect to their accuracy for the calculation of pressure and velocity distributions. In particular, we illustrate how training data size and the number of weights influence the accuracy of the solutions. With our best models we arrive at a mean relative pressure and velocity error of less than 3% across a range of previously unseen airfoil shapes. In addition all source code is publicly available in order to ensure reproducibility and to provide a starting point for researchers interested in deep learning methods for physics problems. While this work focuses on RANS solutions, the neural network architecture and learning setup are very generic, and applicable to a wide range of PDE boundary value problems on Cartesian grids.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
AirCANS: CFD 2D Mesh Optimisation-based Airfoil Classification and Assessment using Neural Networks
A MeshCNN-style convolutional network adapted to 2D CFD airfoil meshes classifies airfoil thickness ranges with roughly 67% stable and 83% peak accuracy, but the small self-made dataset and missing artifacts limit the result.
-
Loop2Net: Data-Driven Generation and Optimization of Airfoil CFD Meshes from Sparse Boundary Coordinates
Thirty-five airfoil boundary points can be mapped to a dense CFD mesh point cloud by a three-layer network trained with Chamfer and repulsion losses.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.