MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2274277410 · doi:10.15866/irena.v2i4.4635

Vibration Analysis of Doubly Coupled Cracked Composite Beams: an Exact Dynamic Stiffness Matrix

2014· article· en· W2274277410 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen R. Borneman, Seyed M. Hashemi, Hekmat Alighanbari

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal on Numerical and Analytical Methods in Engineering (IRENA) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCantileverVibrationStructural engineeringBending stiffnessStiffnessMaterials scienceBeam (structure)Stiffness matrixBoundary value problemTorsion (gastropod)Nonlinear systemComposite numberNatural frequencyComposite materialMathematical analysisMathematicsPhysicsEngineeringAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Dynamic Stiffness Matrix (DSM) is developed to analyze the free vibration characteristics of doubly coupled, cracked, laminated, unidirectional, unbalanced composite beams. Based on the closed form solution of the governing differential equations, an ‘exact’ DSM formulation for bending-torsion vibration of an intact composite beam is first presented. Both material and geometric/structural couplings are taken into account. Stress intensity factors, corrected for geometry and material anisotropy, are used to develop the local flexibility of a through-thickness cracked uniform beam. The system is modeled using two interconnected  intact beams and the crack is modeled by implementing its local flexibility. The intact elements’ DSMs exhibiting both mass and stiffness properties are then assembled and the boundary conditions are applied to form the nonlinear eigenproblem of the overall system. The natural frequencies and modes are extracted using the well-known Wittrick–William (W-W) root counting algorithm. Numerical tests are conducted for a long, slender, flat, uniform, cantilever, laminated composite beam of solid rectangular cross-section, exhibiting material couplings.  Both intact and damaged scenarios for a ply angle, η=30°, the crack located at 30% of the span, and the crack ratio of α=0.3, are investigated. Numerical results on natural frequencies and modes are in excellent agreement with the literature.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.393
Threshold uncertainty score0.852

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.361 · 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

Citations9
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal on Numerical and Analytical Methods in Engineering (IRENA)Same topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207