MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2041566289 · doi:10.1115/detc2006-99280

A Topological Model for the Representation of Meshing Constraints in the Context of Finite Element Analysis

2006· article· en· W2041566289 on OpenAlexaff
Gilles Foucault, Jean-Claude Le ́on, Jean-Christophe Cuillière, Vincent Franc ̧ois, Roland Maranzana

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicManufacturing Process and Optimization
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdjacency listFinite element methodBoundary representationRepresentation (politics)Computer scienceComputationCADTopology (electrical circuits)Constraint (computer-aided design)Boundary (topology)Context (archaeology)GraphTheoretical computer scienceSolid modelingAdaptation (eye)Computer Aided DesignAlgorithmGeometryMathematicsEngineering drawingArtificial intelligenceEngineeringCombinatoricsStructural engineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The preparation of Finite Element analysis models (FE models) from Computer Aided Design (CAD) models is still a difficult task since its Boundary Representation (B-Rep) is often composed of a large number of thin faces, small edges, which are much smaller than the desired element size, and are not relevant for the meshing process. Such inconsistencies often cause poor-shaped FE elements, overdensities of elements, not only slowing down the computation of the FE solution, but also producing poor simulation results. In this paper, we present a “Mesh Constraint Topology” (MCT) model with adaptation operators aiming at transforming the CAD model in a FE model which only contains meshing-relevant edges and vertices, i.e. the explicit model of data intrinsic to the meshing process. Because the topology of faces adapted for meshing could contain interior edges, the MCT is represented with adjacency graphs instead of the B-Rep data-structure. We demonstrate how graphs provide efficient schemes to qualify interior and boundary entities, and facilitate the design of adaptation operators using high-level graph operators. Application and results are presented through adaptation issues of CAD models solved using MCT adaptation operators.

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)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.237 · 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
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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicManufacturing Process and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207