MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2049814696 · doi:10.1115/gt2007-27341

A Stability Analysis of Constrained Rotating Disks With Different Boundary Conditions

2007· article· en· W2049814696 on OpenAlexaff
Ramin M.H. Khorasany, Stanley G. Hutton

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicTribology and Lubrication Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGalerkin methodFlutterEquations of motionBoundary value problemPartial differential equationVibrationDifferential equationMathematical analysisNumerical analysisStability (learning theory)PhysicsMathematicsMechanicsClassical mechanicsFinite element methodComputer scienceAerodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The vibration behavior of constrained high speed rotating disks is of interest in industries as diverse as: aerospace, computer disk manufacture and saw design and usage. The purpose of this study is to investigate the stability behavior of guided circular disks with different boundary conditions. The equations of motion are developed for circular rotating disks constrained by space fixed linear, mass, spring, damper systems. The resulting equation of motion is a two dimensional fourth order partial differential equation that requires numerical solution. The Galerkin Method is employed using the eigenfunctions of the stationary non-constrained disk as approximation functions. Of interest is the effect on stability of conditions at the inner boundary. In particular the difference in behavior for centrally clamped, and splined disks (those disks that run on a spline arbor) is investigated. Also discussed is the effect of constraints on the flutter and divergence instability boundaries. Preliminary experimental results are presented for constrained splined disks, and these results are compared with the analytical predictions.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.340
Threshold uncertainty score0.380

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTribology and Lubrication EngineeringFrench-language works237,207