Thermally Driven Multi-Objective Packing Optimization Using Acceleration Fields
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The packing optimization of three-dimensional components into a design space is a challenging and time-intensive task. Of particular concern is the thermal performance of the system, as tightly packed components typically exhibit poor heat dissipation performance which can result in overheating and system failure. As temperature modeling can be quite complex, there is a growing demand in the industry for software tools that aid designers in the packing process whilst considering heat transfer. This work outlines a novel multi-objective algorithm that considers temperature and thermal effects directly within the packing optimization process itself using thermal optimization objectives. In addition, the algorithm can consider functional objectives such as a desired center of mass position and minimizing rotational inertia. The algorithm packs components from initial to optimal positions within a design domain using a set of dynamic acceleration fields. There are multiple accelerations, each designed to improve the objective values for the systems (e.g., minimize temperature variance). Component temperatures are calculated using thermal finite element analyses modeling conduction and natural convection. Forced convection is approximated via computational fluid dynamics simulations. Numerical results for two academic and one real-world case studies are presented to demonstrate the efficacy of the presented algorithm.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it