MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2153737688 · doi:10.2514/6.2010-8105

Simulating the Dynamic Behavior of Structural Components with Foam Interfaces for Space Shuttle Integrated Payloads

2010· article· en· W2153737688 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Contreras, Richard Lee, Simeon Powell, Sagar Vidyasagar, Sundeep Bhatia, Steve Schaff

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies Conference · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBladed Disk Vibration Dynamics
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSpace ShuttleComputer scienceSpace (punctuation)Materials scienceAerospace engineeringMechanical engineeringEngineeringOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Simulating the structural dynamic behavior of large scale modeled systems such as space shuttle payloads is traditionally formulated using substructuring methods. The Lockheed Martin Cargo Mission Contract structural dynamics analysis team has developed a methodology for a simulation design tool capable of analyzing irregular interface connections between large scale substructures, or components. Dividing the overall system into several components, each represented by an appropriate reduced order Finite Element Model (FEM), provides an analytical framework capable of more accurately representing the boundary conditions that exist at the component interface. In particular, Lockheed Martin conducted experiments directed at characterizing the material behavior of foam packing that is currently being used to secure space shuttle cargo. The nonlinear behavior of the foam presents a unique challenge in predicting accurate design loads for space hardware. First, the linear analysis capabilities of the newly developed simulation technology are demonstrated on an example problem in which the space shuttle is coupled to a flight cargo carrier. Next, the methodology is validated further by simulating the dynamic behavior of a foam interface condition that exists between two axial bars. The linear results are compared to existing simulation technologies and current National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) design standards for Coupled Loads Analysis (CLA).

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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.234 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIAA Modeling and Simulation Technologies ConferenceSame topicBladed Disk Vibration DynamicsFrench-language works237,207