MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884245809 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2017-0083

Dynamic modeling of aircraft landing gear and multi-objective optimization with simple cell mapping method

2018· article· en· W2884245809 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wei-Guo Wu, Fu-Rui Xiong, Jian-Qiao Sun, Yong-Gang Leng

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Engineering and Vibrations Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsFinite element methodLanding gearFuselageVibrationOptimal designComputer scienceEngineeringControl theory (sociology)Structural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To study the dynamic characteristics of aircraft landing gear and carry out successive optimizations, a mathematical model of flexible landing gear is established by the Hamiltonian principle. The dynamic model includes a tire force estimation derived from the impact model. Dynamic analysis with the flexible model is then conducted. Stress distribution is obtained from the dynamic analysis, which can be used for fatigue analysis, optimization design, etc. To achieve better dynamic characteristics in terms of vibration reduction, a multi-objective optimization problem is formulated and solved via a simple cell mapping algorithm. Optimal simulations indicate the quality of optimal structural designs. Compared with the baseline structure, candidate optimal designs can improve dynamic performance of fuselage vibration suppression, shock absorber efficiency, and stress settling time. The proposed multi-objective optimal parameter design provides a fast tuning procedure that saves considerable time compared to finite element method-based optimization. In addition, the optimal parameter set provides useful interface information for detailed landing gear structural modeling that serves other analysis purposes.

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 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.622
Threshold uncertainty score0.518

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical EngineeringSame topicMechanical Engineering and Vibrations ResearchFrench-language works237,207