MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085800607 · doi:10.1115/gt2008-51181

Automated Preliminary Structural Rotor Design Using Genetic Algorithms and Neural Networks

2008· article· en· W2085800607 on OpenAlexaff
S. Dominique, J.-Y. Tre ́panier

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlgorithmArtificial neural networkGenetic algorithmComputer scienceEngineering design processAerodynamicsSensitivity (control systems)Rotor (electric)Process (computing)PopulationOptimal designSet (abstract data type)Mathematical optimizationControl engineeringEngineeringArtificial intelligenceMachine learningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is important for any design process to have a good starting point in order to reduce the cycle time and the number of design iterations required. This paper presents an automated preliminary structural design system for a gas turbine rotor, using only preliminary aerodynamic data and a simplified structural analysis, with the objective of producing a good, feasible starting solution for the blades and the disc. The process starts with a CBR (case-based reasoning) algorithm coupled with a databank of existing solutions. The algorithm uses a neural network to choose from among the closest existing rotor solutions and interpolate between them. These designs, along with the interpolated solution, will constitute the initial set of possible designs. An adaptation algorithm then processes each possible design using simplified analysis to compute the estimated sensitivity of the design function with respect to each parameter in the neighbourhood of these design solutions. The algorithm uses those sensitivities to separate the design parameters into several layers according to their relative importance. In a following phase, these design solutions are used to train a surrogate neural network model for the function, and also as the starting population for a genetic algorithm (GA). The GA is then run, with the objective of minimizing the weight of the rotor while respecting stress and aerodynamics constraints. More parameter sets (beginning with the most important) are gradually added as an input for each GA run. Although this process would not be capable of replacing a detailed design system, as it currently uses only simplified analysis, it can provide a concept designer with a very good starting solution within a relatively short computing time.

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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.242 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced Multi-Objective Optimization AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207