MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159430757 · doi:10.1115/omae2013-10133

Efficient Semi-Analytical Methodology for the Pre-Design Analysis of the Shock Response of Marine Structures

2013· article· en· W2159430757 on OpenAlexaff
С. С. Яковлев, Jean‐François Sigrist, Cédric Leblond, H.A.F.A. Santos, Cris T. Seaton, Kyle Williston

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Shell (structure)Shock waveShock (circulatory)WavefrontFluid–structure interactionShock response spectrumFinite element methodCoupling (piping)Computer scienceMechanicsStructural engineeringPhysicsEngineeringClassical mechanicsMechanical engineeringAccelerationOpticsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We introduce a robust and computationally efficient methodology for numerical simulation of shock-structure interaction. The methodology is based on the use of some of the classical methods of mathematical physics, with the subsequent coupling between the fluid dynamics and structural parts using the finite-difference methodology. In order to demonstrate the versatility of the approach, we apply it to two rather different practically important problems of the interaction between shock waves and submerged cylindrical structures, aiming at providing insights that would be useful to engineers at the pre-design stage. We first consider a submerged cylindrical shell subjected to two consecutive shock waves, and analyze the effect of such loading in the context of both hydrodynamic fields and the structural stresses it induces. The most important result of this analysis is the observation, for certain values of the distance between the wavefronts, of a very significant increase of the maximum stress observed in the structure. Then, we consider a submerged cylindrical shell subjected to a single shock wave, but employ a more advanced shell theory than the one traditionally used, namely, the Reissner-Mindlin theory instead of the Kirchhoff-Love one. We demonstrate that such an advancement of the model not only leads to a very significant improvement of the accuracy of the respective simulations, but also allows for modeling relatively thick shells.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.250 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComputational Fluid Dynamics and AerodynamicsFrench-language works237,207