MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295953044 · doi:10.4050/f-0078-2022-1229

Airframe Structural Sizing Automation

2022· article· en· W4295953044 on OpenAlexaff
Anthony D. Joseph, Anne Koeppel, Robert Daley

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Failure Analysis and Simulation
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAirframeSizingAutomationProcess (computing)Iterative and incremental developmentStiffnessComputer scienceEngineeringStructural engineeringSimulationMechanical engineeringAerospace engineeringSoftware engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Determining the optimum cross section for each primary structural member of an airframe structure has always been an iterative process since changing the stiffness of one member redistributes loads. Each iteration of internal loads calculations with a global aircraft finite element model (GFEM) followed by strength and stability checks results in further cross section changes (sizings) to reduce weight or regain positive margins of safety. The handoffs between tools and the update process for the next iteration is time consuming and has many opportunities for errors. This paper will describe a tool developed at Sikorsky to automatically iterate sizings saving development time and executing more sizing iterations than historically possible which saves weight. The tool can operate on metallic and composite structures. The development time and weight savings is critical to support ever shrinking time to fielding/market for commercial and military models.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0240.008

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMechanical Failure Analysis and SimulationFrench-language works237,207