MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390687922 · doi:10.33599/nasampe/c.23.0165

In-Process Surface Analysis of a Sub-Scale Aerospace Component

2023· article· en· W4390687922 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M. Benson, L. Jeries, G. Lund, C. Stroemel, M. Župan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComponent (thermodynamics)AerospaceScale (ratio)Process (computing)Computer scienceEngineeringAerospace engineeringGeographyPhysicsCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Comparing manufactured parts to their engineering design definition is the basis for Quality Control. Traditionally, Geometric Dimensioning and Tolerancing (GD&T) standards define how fabrication specifications are generated from the design intent. Due to the additive nature of the composite layup process, the Automated Fiber Placement (AFP) process requires a new paradigm for quality control to realize its full potential. To ensure the traditional GD&T part dimensional verification standards are met for the finished the part, the AFP process requires a ply-by-ply inspection of the as-built laminate to ensure that each layer in the ply stack conforms with the manufacturing allowable specifications. Each ply can be considered as an individual part which must be carefully inspected and mated with the other plies in the stack to form a composite assembly. Evaluating each ply as its own part introduces complexity and significant overhead to the composite layup process.To address this shortcoming, Fives and the Canadian National Research Council have proposed an In-Process Inspection (IPI) system based on Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) technology that can perform high-resolution surface profilometry simultaneous to layup. Previous presentations about this technology have demonstrated how surface profile measurements and a rigorous sensor spatial calibration procedure are key enablers to accurately capture the layup surface. Furthermore, the methodology to automatically align the as-manufactured measurements to the as-designed engineering model was demonstrated as a key step to compare fabrication data to the CAD design reference.This paper will build on the previously described work and outline the feature detection engine of the IPI platform to locate and measure gaps, laps, tow-end location, and topical defects. A comprehensive feature detection sub-system must employ many layers of detection granularity. In this work, tow, course, ply, and volumetric level features are classified and regionally quantified as defects based on the Digital Ply Book provided by the Fives ACES Offline Programing software. A sub-scale component with features typical of aerospace parts will be used to demonstrate the technology. Preliminary results and several relevant disposition strategies will be described.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdditive Manufacturing and 3D Printing TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207