MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3037474762 · doi:10.1108/aa-03-2019-0040

Optimization of fastener pattern in airframe assembly

2020· article· en· W3037474762 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAssembly Automation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicManufacturing Process and Optimization
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFastenerAirframeSimulated annealingEngineeringExploitComputer scienceFuselageProbabilistic logicMathematical optimizationAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceMechanical engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The authors consider the problem of optimizing temporary fastener patterns in aircraft assembly. Minimizing the number of fasteners while maintaining final product quality is one of the key enablers for intensifying production in the aerospace industry. The purpose of this study is to formulate the fastener pattern optimization problem and compare different solving approaches on both test benchmarks and rear wing-to-fuselage assembly of an Airbus A350-900. Design/methodology/approach The first considered algorithm is based on a local exhaustive search. It is proved to be efficient and reliable but requires much computational effort. Secondly, the Mesh Adaptive Direct Search (MADS) implemented in NOMAD software (Nonlinear Optimization by Mesh Adaptive Direct Search) is used to apply the powerful mathematical machinery of surrogate modeling and associated optimization strategy. In addition, another popular optimization algorithm called simulated annealing (SA) was implemented. Since a single fastener pattern must be used for the entire aircraft series, cross-validation of obtained results was applied. The available measured initial gaps from 340 different aircraft of the A350-900 series were used. Findings The results indicated that SA cannot be applicable as its random character does not provide repeatable results and requires tens of runs for any optimization analysis. Both local variations (LV) method and MADS have proved to be appropriate as they improved the existing fastener pattern for all available gaps. The modification of the MADS' search step was performed to exploit all the information the authors have about the problem. Originality/value The paper presents deterministic and probabilistic optimization problem formulations and considers three different approaches for their solution. The existing fastener pattern was improved.

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.

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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.772
Threshold uncertainty score0.501

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.198 · 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