MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W198116453 · doi:10.4203/ccp.75.41

Application of the Dynamic Finite Element Formulation in Flutter Analysis of Wings

2009· article· en· W198116453 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCivil-comp proceedings · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAeroelasticity and Vibration Control
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlutterFinite element methodComputer scienceWingStructural engineeringAerodynamicsEngineeringAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Dynamic Finite Element (DFE) approach in vibration analysis of different beam configuration is well established. The DFE method can be presented as an intermediate method between the classical Finite Element Method (FEM) and the Dynamic Stiffness Matrix (DSM) formulation. The aim of this investigation is to extend the DFE methodology to the vibration analysis of wings in presence of aerodynamic forces. Some effects of unsteady aerodynamic forces are taken into account but all damping terms are neglected. Based on the preliminary DFE results obtained for a cantilever uniform coupled bending-torsion wing, increasing the air speed changes the main frequencies of the system. It is observed that near the flutter condition, first two frequencies of the aeroelastic system come together. This scenario is very well in agreement with the coalescence flutter.

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 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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.297
Threshold uncertainty score0.279

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.201 · 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