Probabilistic Design of a Plate-Like Wing to Meet Flutter and Strength Requirements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An approach is presented for carrying out reliability-based design of a metallic, plate-like wing to meet strength and flutter requirements that are given in terms of risk/reliability. The design problem is to determine the thickness distribution such that wing weight is a minimum and the probability of failure is less than a specified value. Failure is assumed to occur if either the flutter speed is less than a specified allowable or the stress caused by a pressure loading is greater than a specified allowable. Four uncertain quantities are considered: wing thickness, calculated flutter speed, allowable stress, and magnitude of a uniform pressure load. The reliability-based design optimization approach described herein starts with a design obtained using conventional deterministic design optimization with margins on the allowables. Reliability is calculated using Monte Carlo simulation with response surfaces that provide values of stresses and flutter speed. During the reliability-based design optimization, the response surfaces and move limits are coordinated to ensure accuracy of the response surfaces. Studies carried out in the paper show the relationship between reliability and weight and indicate that, for the design problem considered, increases in reliability can be obtained with modest increases in weight.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".