MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116642935 · doi:10.1155/2014/153532

On the Flexural-Torsional Vibration and Stability of Beams Subjected to Axial Load and End Moment

2014· article· en· W2116642935 on OpenAlexafffund
Mir Tahmaseb Kashani, Supun Jayasinghe, Seyed M. Hashemi

Bibliographic record

VenueShock and Vibration · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComposite Structure Analysis and Optimization
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaRyerson University
KeywordsStructural engineeringBeam (structure)Torsion (gastropod)Bending stiffnessVibrationFinite element methodBoundary value problemIsotropyBending momentTimoshenko beam theoryConjugate beam methodStiffnessNatural frequencyBucklingShear and moment diagramMaterials sciencePhysicsMathematicsEngineeringMathematical analysisAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The free vibration of beams, subjected to a constant axial load and end moment and various boundary conditions, is examined. Based on the Euler-Bernoulli bending and St. Venant torsion beam theories, the differential equations governing coupled flexural-torsional vibrations and stability of a uniform, slender, isotropic, homogeneous, and linearly elastic beam, undergoing linear harmonic vibration, are first reviewed. The existing formulations are then briefly discussed and a conventional finite element method (FEM) is developed. Exploiting the MATLAB-based code, the resulting linear Eigenvalue problem is then solved to determine the Eigensolutions (i.e., natural frequencies and modes) of illustrative examples, exhibiting geometric bending-torsion coupling. Various classical boundary conditions are considered and the FEM frequency results are validated against those obtained from a commercial software (ANSYS) and the data available in the literature. Tensile axial force is found to increase natural frequencies, indicating beam stiffening. However, when a force and an end moment are acting in combination, the moment reduces the stiffness of the beam and the stiffness of the beam is found to be more sensitive to the changes in the magnitude of the axial force compared to the moment. A buckling analysis of the beam is also carried out to determine the critical buckling end moment and axial compressive force.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations28
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueShock and VibrationSame topicComposite Structure Analysis and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207