MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409171549 · doi:10.1016/j.procir.2025.02.022

Simulation-Based Enhancement of Flexure Hinges Machining for the Ariel Telescope M1 Mirror

2025· article· en· W4409171549 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Riccardo Lilli, Daniele Gottini, Niccolò Grossi, Antonio Scippa

Bibliographic record

VenueProcedia CIRP · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Measurement and Metrology Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInstitut sur la Nutrition et les Aliments FonctionnelsIstituto Nazionale di AstrofisicaAgenzia Spaziale Italiana
KeywordsHingeMachiningTelescopeAerospace engineeringEngineeringMechanical engineeringOpticsComputer sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The telescope main mirror (M1) of the Ariel Space Mission is a lightweight elliptical mirror with a parabolic surface, supported by three flexure hinges designed to mitigate deformation effects. Since these hinges must meet stringent planarity tolerances of 2 μm on their interface pads, they were manufactured using Single Point Diamond Turning (SPDT). However, initial manufacturing attempts failed in obtaining a component within the tolerance, revealing significant deformations of the flexure hinge during machining. This paper presents a simulation-based approach developed to address this issue. The component deformations were predicted considering the effects of centrifugal forces, gravity, and clamping. However, such simulation showed deformations significantly lower than the experimental results, suggesting unaccounted effects from coupling surface tolerances. Based on CMM measurements of the interfaces, a revised clamping configuration was proposed to minimize the influence of coupling tolerances. This approach significantly improved planarity, achieving a final flatness of 1.5 μm, well within the required tolerance. The proposed simulation-based procedure reduced trial-and-error iterations, improving manufacturing efficiency and precision in the production of the flexure hinges. Although not accounting for all factors, the simulations provided valuable insights into the causes of errors and guided the development of a successful fixturing strategy.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.272 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcedia CIRPSame topicAdvanced Measurement and Metrology TechniquesFrench-language works237,207