MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994466696 · doi:10.1115/detc2010-28625

Nonlinear Vibration of Plates and Higher Order Theory for Different Boundary Conditions

2010· article· en· W1994466696 on OpenAlexafffund
Marco Amabili, Kostas Karagiozis, Sirwan Farhadi, Korosh Khorshidi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComposite Structure Analysis and Optimization
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPlate theoryIsotropyBoundary value problemNonlinear systemVibrationComposite plateStructural engineeringPhysicsMathematical analysisMechanicsMaterials scienceComposite numberGeometryClassical mechanicsMathematicsEngineeringAcousticsComposite materialOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are numerous applications of plate structures found in structural, aerospace and marine engineering. The present study extends the previous work by Amabili and Sirwan [1] investigating the performance of isotropic and laminate composite rectangular plates with different boundary conditions subjected to an external point force with an excitation frequency that lies in the neighbourhood of the fundamental mode of the plate. The analysis is performed using three different nonlinear plate theories, namely: i) the classical Von Ka´rman theory, ii) first-order shear deformation theory, and iii) third-order shear deformation theory. Three different boundary conditions are considered in the investigation: a) classical clamped boundary conditions, b) simply-supported ends with immovable edges, and c) simply-supported ends with movable boundaries. In addition, the effect of thickness was also considered in the analysis and different values for the plate thickness were assumed. The results investigate the accuracy of lower order theories versus higher order shear deformation theories, the effect of boundary conditions and highlight the differences in the responses obtained from isotropic and laminate composite rectangular plates.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.824
Threshold uncertainty score0.463

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComposite Structure Analysis and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207