MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2078153679 · doi:10.1115/gt2010-23011

Optimization of a Gas Turbine Engine Rotor Disc Using Case-Based Reasoning and the GATE Genetic Algorithm

2010· article· en· W2078153679 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInitializationGenetic algorithmArtificial neural networkComputer scienceRotor (electric)UpgradeProcess (computing)AlgorithmCase-based reasoningField (mathematics)PopulationEngineering design processLocal search (optimization)Mathematical optimizationEngineeringArtificial intelligenceMechanical engineeringMachine learningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The implementation of an automated decision support system in the field of structural design and optimization can give a significant advantage to any industry working on mechanical design. Such a system can reduce the project cycle time or allow more time to produce a better design by providing solution ideas to a designer or by upgrading existing design solutions while the designer is not at work. This paper presents an approach to automating the process of designing a gas turbine engine rotor disc using case-based reasoning (CBR), combined with a new genetic algorithm, the Genetic Algorithm with Territorial core Evolution (GATE). GATE was specifically created to solve problems in the mechanical structural design field, and is essentially a real number genetic algorithm that prevents new individuals from being born too close to previously evaluated solutions. The restricted area becomes smaller or larger during optimization to allow global or local searches when necessary. The CBR process uses a databank filled with every known solution to similar design problems. The closest solutions to the current problem in terms of specifications are selected, along with an estimated solution from an artificial neural network. Each solution selected by the CBR is then used to initialize the population of a GATE island. Our results show that CBR may significantly upgrade the performance of an optimization algorithm when sufficient preliminary information is known about the design problem. It provides an average solution 5.0% lighter than the average solution found using random initialization. The results are compared to other results obtained for the same problems by four optimization algorithms from the I-SIGHT 3.5 software: the sequential quadratic programming algorithm (SQP), the insular genetic algorithm (GA), the Hookes & Jeeves generalized pattern search (HJ) and POINTER. Results show that GATE can be a very good candidate for automating and accelerating the structural design of a gas turbine engine rotor disc, providing an average disc 18.9% lighter than SQP, 11.2% lighter than HJ, 23.9% lighter than GA and 4.3% lighter than POINTER, even when starting with the same solution set.

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 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.459

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.231 · 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