MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070959109 · doi:10.1121/1.3664093

Transmission loss of periodically stiffened laminate composite panels: Shear deformation and in-plane interaction effects

2012· article· en· W2070959109 on OpenAlexafffund
Abderrazak Mejdi, Julien Legault, Noureddine Atalla

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAcoustic Wave Phenomena Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCompute Canada
KeywordsTorsion (gastropod)Composite numberFinite element methodMaterials scienceCoupling (piping)Eccentricity (behavior)Boundary value problemStructural engineeringShear (geology)Plane (geometry)Composite materialGeometryMathematicsMathematical analysisEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper investigates the transmission loss of symmetric and asymmetric laminate composite panels periodically reinforced by composite stiffeners. A comprehensive model based on periodic structure theory is developed. First order shear deformation theory is used and the coupling of the in-plane motion of the panel with its out-of-plane motion is taken into account. Stiffeners interact with the panel through three forces (two in-plane, one out-of-plane) and a torsion moment. Three types of cross sections are investigated for the composite stiffeners: I-shaped, C-shaped, and omega-shaped cross-sections. The model is validated numerically by comparison with the finite element/boundary element method. Experimental validations are also conducted. In both cases, excellent agreement is obtained. Numerical results show that the in-plane coupling effect is increased by increasing the panel thickness and the stiffener's eccentricity. The in-plane coupling effect is also found to increase with frequency.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score0.236

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 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

Citations23
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicAcoustic Wave Phenomena ResearchFrench-language works237,207