Sensitivity analysis and design optimization of smart laminated beams using layerwise theory
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present work, the sensitivity analysis of laminated beams with surface bonded and/or embedded piezoelectric sensors and actuators has been conducted using the finite element model based on the layerwise displacement theory. The finite element formulation also incorporates the interaction between electrical and mechanical fields. The gradients of various constraints and objective functions with respect to the design variables are derived analytically. By combining the coupled layerwise finite element model, the developed analytical gradients and sequential quadratic programming (SQP) technique, an efficient optimization algorithm has been developed. Illustrative examples are presented to demonstrate the capabilities and efficiency of the developed sensitivity analysis and optimization algorithm in both static and dynamic problems. Two main design objectives, namely, mass minimization and actuating force maximization along with displacement and frequency constraints, are considered in the optimization. It has been shown that the use of analytical gradients results in significant reduction in computational efforts in the sensitivity analysis and the design optimization. This advantage is well pronounced in large structural problems or in problems with many design variables.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it