MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1980971491 · doi:10.1177/0021998312449027

Lightweight damping of composite sandwich beams: Experimental analysis

2012· article· en· W1980971491 on OpenAlexaff
ER Fotsing, M Sola, A. Ross, Édu Ruiz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Composite Materials · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCellular and Composite Structures
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceViscoelasticityComposite materialComposite numberBeam (structure)Shearing (physics)Damping ratioStructural engineeringHammerEpoxyAcousticsVibration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this article is to experimentally study the damping of composite sandwich beams with lightweight honeycomb core. The top and bottom facesheets are made of carbon/epoxy layers with partial interleaved viscoelastic layers. A new damping approach consisting of selectively targeting the inflection points of the bending mode shapes is proposed. At the nodes, the shearing deformation in the beam is maximal, and so is the strain in the viscoelastic layers. The experimental investigation of damping is made by means of standard impact tests using an instrumented hammer performed on beam specimens. The nodes are determined experimentally by moving a small accelerometer along the beam axis and by measuring the amplitude of the acceleration at each point. This novel damping approach keeps the damping ratio as high as the ratio obtained with standard (full coverage) surface damping treatment while reducing the added mass by almost 50%. A comparison of the results obtained in this study with experimental and numerical results found in the literature leads to the conclusion that the most efficient way of damping this type of sandwich structure is to modify and/or improve the viscoelastic properties of the core.

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 score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations41
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Composite MaterialsSame topicCellular and Composite StructuresFrench-language works237,207