MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020250872 · doi:10.1115/detc2007-35830

Random Vibration Suppression of Non-Uniform Curved Beams Using Optimal Tuned Mass Damper

2007· article· en· W2020250872 on OpenAlexaff
Fan Yang, Ramin Sedaghati, Ebrahim Esmailzadeh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech UniversityConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTuned mass damperVibrationStructural engineeringBeam (structure)AerospaceVibration controlRandom vibrationOptimal designFinite element methodDamperEngineeringComputer scienceAcousticsPhysicsAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Beam type structures have many applications in mechanical, aerospace and civil engineering fields. Due to low damping and recent trend for light weight design (especially for aerospace vehicles and transportation systems), these structures may easily vibrate in their low natural frequencies which may subsequently lead to failure of structure. Thus vibration control of these structures is a very important task which should be considered in preliminary structural design optimization. One of the engineering concerns is to design non-uniform beam type structures with changing geometry. In this study, the structural vibration analysis and design of a curved beam with attached tuned mass dampers under random excitations are presented. The finite element formulation of the curved beam with attached tuned mass dampers has been derived and combined with Sequential Quadratic Programming optimization algorithm to find optimal design variables in tuned mass dampers to minimize the vibration. Illustrative examples are provided to demonstrate the methodology.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207