MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4248816089 · doi:10.22215/etd/2018-13493

High Fidelity and Efficient Computations of Dynamic Loads for Multidisciplinary Design Optimization of Flexible Transport Aircraft

2018· dissertation· en· W4248816089 on OpenAlexaff
Michelle Guzman Nieto

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAdvanced Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithms
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetamodelingKrigingAirframeMultidisciplinary design optimizationReduction (mathematics)Computer scienceMathematical optimizationModalProcess (computing)High fidelitySet (abstract data type)Surrogate modelComputationEngineeringAlgorithmAerospace engineeringMultidisciplinary approachMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The current state-of-the-art design optimization of airframes is tightly wounded to its loads analyses as the process is usually conducted employing a deterministic set of critical load cases.The sheer number of scenarios required to estimate the critical loading conditions prevent these two processes from integrating, obstructing the development of a Multidisciplinary Design Optimization (MDO) framework.In this thesis, the problem of high fidelity and efficient estimation of critical dynamic aeroelastic loads is addressed, as a first step, towards the development of an integrated MDO platform for airframes at preliminary and detailed design stages.The method is based on the Kriging metamodeling technique along with the Latin Hypercube scheme for initial sampling and the expected improvement function for subsequent selection of sample points, known formally as the Efficient Global Optimization (EGO) algorithm.Furthermore, different inexpensive metrics, based on the concept of modal contribution factors, are investigated to serve as indicators to determine if a substantial change in the loads has occurred during the design optimization cycle, triggering the requirement for the re-exploration of the loads design space.A case study is presented to evaluate the performance of the proposed methodology versus a full factorial search.A reduction of 84% was achieved in the total time of execution employing the proposed methodology.

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)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 topicAdvanced Multi-Objective Optimization AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207