Optimization of Fixture and Joint Positions in Sheet Metal Assembly: The Effect of Fixture Numbers and Constraints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Assembly process is widely used in the manufacturing processes. Fabrication processes such as machining, casting and metal forming are not perfect and introduce variation in the components. Variations of components and tools accumulate and cause the assembly variation. In this paper, after reviewing the literature and presenting sheet metal assembly variation analysis, an optimization method is used to minimize the assembly variation by optimizing the location of joints and fixtures. The model is constructed in ANSYS with three fixtures and two joints. When a black-box function calculated numerically in software is used as the objective function, using deterministic methods for optimization is not suitable because the deterministic methods need knowledge of the objective functions. Also, using stochastic methods such as genetic algorithm is not suitable because of the large number of function evaluations they normally need. In this paper, an optimization algorithm based on mode-pursuing sampling (MPS) method is used to minimize the assembly variation. The optimization method is explained and after implementing the method, results are presented. It is learned that, in addition to the number of fixtures, the constraints on neighboring fixture locations also affect the optimal fixture layout, as well as the final assembly stiffness and spring-back.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".