MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An Analytical Technique for Optimization of Mechanical Performance of Foam Core Sandwich Structures

2012· article· en· W1979923724 on OpenAlexaff
Hanif Montazeri, Fardad Azarmi, Tom W. Coyle, J. Mostaghimi

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials science forum · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCellular and Composite Structures
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSandwich-structured compositeComponent (thermodynamics)Material selectionMaterials scienceCore (optical fiber)Mechanical engineeringField (mathematics)Computer scienceStructural engineeringEngineeringComposite materialMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sandwich structures are widely used, especially in areas where the performance of conventional materials is simply not adequate. Sandwich components achieve the same structural performance as conventional materials with weight savings of up to 75 %. They are basically made from two thin skins (faces) and a lightweight thicker core. Their structural, physical, and mechanical characteristics can be tailored based on service requirements by selection of different materials and manufacturing processes. In this study, the geometry and property of each separate component is utilized to the structural advantage of the whole assembly. Although Lagrangian method has been widely applied in other engineering disciplines, it has received less attention for optimization of sandwich components. The Lagrangian method is therefore introduced and expanded to find solutions for multipurpose design problems. This new optimization approach will enable us to find analytical solutions for complicated design problems which were conventionally solved by utilizing graphical methods. This paper aims to present a generic optimization method which can be used in the variety of applications in this field.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.076
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 teacher head, 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterials science forumSame topicCellular and Composite StructuresFrench-language works237,207