MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1851020071 · doi:10.1115/imece2014-40082

Active Vibration Control Using Self-Sensing Actuators: An Experimental Comparison of Piezoelectric and Electromagnetic Technologies

2014· article· en· W1851020071 on OpenAlexaff
Romain Boulandet, Anik Pelletier, Philippe Micheau, Alain Berry

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAeroelasticity and Vibration Control
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersInstitute of Nuclear Energy ResearchSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsExciterActuatorVibration controlVibrationHarmonicActive vibration controlComputer sciencePiezoelectricityEngineeringControl theory (sociology)Control engineeringAcousticsElectrical engineeringControl (management)Physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper addresses the practical implementation of active vibration control using self-sensing actuators, intending to equip smart structures. The control objective is to reduce the structural vibration of a simply-supported plate subject to time-harmonic excitation. The key challenge is to use a self-sensing actuator instead of a sensor-actuator pair to reject the primary disturbance at the control point. In this study, two types of self-sensing actuators designed from a PZT patch and an electrodynamic inertial exciter are discussed, and their overall performance is compared in terms of reduction of flexural energy and power consumption. Both technologies have proven to be efficient in achieving a time-harmonic vibration control and may be used alternately, depending on the application at hand.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations6
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAeroelasticity and Vibration ControlFrench-language works237,207