Dynamic Scaling of a Wing Structure Model Using Topology Optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, a dynamic scaling methodology is introduced to devise reduced scaled models of aircraft with the objectives of minimizing the development cost and exploring the design space. A promising way to accomplish this is using Topology Optimization (TO) for Additive Manufacturing (AM). Here, TO is employed to design a reduce scale model by matching its natural frequencies and mode shapes to those of a full scale model. Different TO strategies based on density approach are tested with the goal of achieving a dynamically scaled structure that can be manufactured. To achieve this goal, the TO solution should be free from intermediate densities, which is observed for some TO strategies but not all. When no penalization factor is applied: (i) the relative difference between natural frequencies is less than 1% and (ii) the estimated Modal Assurance Criteria (MAC) metric to evaluate the correlation between mode shapes is close to the ideal identity matrix. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of the dynamic scaling methodology. However, when using a penalization factor to avoid intermediate densities, the dynamic behavior correlation between full and scaled models degrades. This trend is more visible in the MAC metric, where off-diagonal terms above 20% and diagonal terms below 90% appear.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".