MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979254423 · doi:10.5267/j.ijiec.2011.08.019

A scheme for functional tolerancing: A product family in 3D CAD system

2011· article· en· W1979254423 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Haoyu Wang, Ravindra Thamma

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Industrial Engineering Computations · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicManufacturing Process and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeometric dimensioning and tolerancingMass customizationComponent (thermodynamics)CADGraphFunctional requirementEngineering drawingComputer scienceDimensioningMATLABScheme (mathematics)PersonalizationProduct designProduct (mathematics)EngineeringReliability engineeringManufacturing engineeringSoftware engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To meet the need for product variety, many companies are shifting from a massproduction mode to mass customization, which demands quick response to the needs of individual customers with high quality and low costs. The multifunctional nature of mechanical components necessitates that a designer redesign them each time when a component's function changes. The functional Geometric Dimensioning & Tolerancing (GD&T) specification, also called functional tolerancing, must be updated for each component. Currently, this is done by humans, and thus can be very time-consuming and error-prone. Functional tolerancing is one of the main obstacles to practical mechanical product family modeling. In this paper, a graph-based functional tolerancing scheme in 3D CAD is proposed. In the scheme, a product is generated by applying production rules to the graph of the base product, following customers' or manufacturing engineers' requirements. Functional tolerancing of each component of a product in the family is formulated as a non-linear constrained optimization (or cost minimization) process. Certain critical aspects of the scheme have been implemented in SolidWorks , by using its Application Programming Interface (API) and C++. LEDA and MATLAB have been used to solve the graph and optimization problems.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.181 · 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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Industrial Engineering ComputationsSame topicManufacturing Process and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207