MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1998877187 · doi:10.1002/suco.201100020

Design and optimization of fabric‐formed beams and trusses: evolutionary algorithms and form‐finding

2011· article· en· W1998877187 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

VenueStructural Concrete · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Analysis and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormworkTrussStructural engineeringFinite element methodFrame (networking)Process (computing)EngineeringCastingTensegrityComputer scienceMechanical engineeringMaterials scienceComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Fabric formwork entails the use of fabrics as the main contact material for a concrete mould. The fabric is either hung or prestressed in a supporting falsework frame. Beams or trusses cast in fabric formwork are inherently non‐prismatic and have been shown to offer potential for structurally efficient shapes. The casting of beams or trusses in fabric formwork is a highly non‐linear problem due to the interaction of the fluid concrete with the woven, prestressed fabric material. Numerical models need to be developed for the engineering of these elements. To this end, it is demonstrated that it is feasible to integrate manufacturing constraints in an automatic optimization process. This is achieved by creating an automated computational framework that includes fabric form‐finding and finite element analysis, which operate within an optimization process that uses principles from biological evolution. The results show structurally efficient and manufacturable beams and demonstrate potential for optimization in general that explicitly includes fabrication considerations.

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 score0.292
Threshold uncertainty score0.509

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.192 · 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