MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2810436264

Numerical Simulation and Customized DACM Based Design Optimization

2018· dissertation· en· W2810436264 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Endashaw Tesfaye Woldemariam

Bibliographic record

VenueDuo Research Archive (University of Oslo) · 2018
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Applied Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUtdannings- og forskningsdepartementetSimon Fraser UniversityUniversitetet i Stavanger
KeywordsComputer scienceEngineering
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The diverse numerical modelling, analysis and simulation tools that have been developed and introduced to markets are intended to perform the virtual design and testing of products and systems without the construction of physical prototypes. Digital prototyping in the form of computer modelling and simulation are important means of numerical model predictions, i.e. design validation and verification. However, as the tools advance to more precise and diverse applications, the operation eventually becomes more complex, computationally expensive and error prone; this is particularly true for complex multi-disciplinary and multidimensional problems; for instance, in multi-body dynamics, Fluid-Structure Interaction (FSI) and high-dimensional numerical simulation problems. On the other hand, integrating design optimization operations into the product and system development processes, through the computer based applications, makes the process even more complex and highly expensive. This thesis analyses and discusses causes of complexity in numerical modelling, simulation and optimization operations and proposes new approaches/frameworks that would help significantly reduce the complexity and the associated computational costs. Proposed approaches mainly integrate, simplify and decompose or approximate complex numerical simulation based optimization problems into simpler, and to metamodel-based optimization problems. \nDespite advancing computational technologies in continuum mechanics, the design and analysis tools have developed in separate directions with regard to ‘basis functions’ of the technologies until recent developments. Basis functions are the building blocks of every continuous function. Continuous functions in every computational tool are linear combinations of specific basis functions in the function space. Since first introduced, basis functions in the design and modelling tools have developed so rapidly that various complex physical problems can today be designed and modelled to the highest precision. On the other hand, most analysis tools still utilize approximate models of the problems from the latter tools, particularly if the problem involves complex smooth geometric designs. The existing gap between the basis functions of the tools and the increasing precision of models for analysis introduce tremendous computational costs. Moreover, to transfer models from one form of basis function to another, additonal effort is required. The variation of the basis functions also demands extra effort in numerical simulation based optimization processes. This thesis discusses the recently developed integrated modelling and analysis approach that utilizes the state-of-the-art basis function (NURBS function) for both design and analysis. A numerical simulation based shape optimization framework that utilizes the state-of-the-art basis function is also presented in a study in the thesis.\nOne of the common multidisciplinary problem that involves multiple models of domains in a single problem, fluid-structure interaction (FSI) problem, is studied in the thesis. As the name implies, the two models of domains involved in any FSI problems are fluid and structure domain models. In order to solve the FSI problems, usually three mathematical components are needed: namely, i) fluid dynamics model, ii) structural mechanics model and, iii) the FSI model. This thesis presents the challenges in FSI problems and discusses different FSI approaches in numerical analysis. A comparative analysis of computational methods, based on the coupling and temporal discretization schemes, is discussed using a benchmark problem, to give a better understanding of what a multidisciplinary problem is and the challenge for design optimizations that involve such problems. [...]

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.282
Teacher spread0.251 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDuo Research Archive (University of Oslo)Same topicEngineering Applied ResearchFrench-language works237,207