Intelligent Design Optimization System for Additively Manufactured Flow Channels Based on Fluid–Structure Interaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Based on expert system theory and fluid-structure interaction (FSI), this paper suggests an intelligent design optimization system to derive the optimal shape of both the fluid and solid domain of flow channels. A parametric modeling scheme of flow channels is developed by design for additive manufacturing (DfAM). By changing design parameters, a series of flow channel models can be obtained. According to the design characteristics, the system can intelligently allocate suitable computational models to compute the flow field of a specific model. The pressure-based normal stress is abstracted from the results and transmitted to the solid region by the fluid-structure (FS) interface to analyze the strength of the structure. The design space is obtained by investigating the simulation results with the metamodeling method, which is further applied for pursuing design objectives under constraints. Finally, the improved design is derived by gradient-based optimization. This system can improve the accuracy of the FSI simulation and the efficiency of the optimization process. The design optimization of a flow channel in a simplified hydraulic manifold is applied as the case study to validate the feasibility of the proposed system.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".