MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Optimisation of Variable Stiffness Plates

2016· article· en· W2292831302 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Paul M. Weaver, Zhang Wu, Gangadharan Raju

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Mechanics and Materials · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComposite Structure Analysis and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersInnovation, Science and Economic Development Canada
KeywordsLaminationOrthotropic materialComposite laminatesStiffnessComposite numberStructural engineeringRobustness (evolution)Materials scienceComposite materialEngineeringFinite element method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Variable angle tow (VAT) describes fibres in a composite lamina that have been steered curvilinearly. In so doing, substantially enlarged freedom for stiffness tailoring of composite laminates is enabled. VAT composite structures have been shown to have improved buckling and postbuckling load carrying capability when compared to straight fibre composites. However, their structural analysis and optimal design is more computationally expensive due to the exponential increase in number of variables associated with spatially varying planar fibre orientations in addition to stacking sequence considerations. In this work, an efficient two-level optim isation framework using lamination parameters as design variables has been enhanced and general ised to the design of VAT plates. Explicit stiffness matrices are found in terms of component material invariants and lamination parameters. The convex hull property of B-splines is exploited to ensure point-wise feasibility of lamination parameters. In addition, a small set of explicit closed-form expressions is used to define the feasible region of two in-plane and two out-of-plane lamination parameters, which are used for the design of orthotropic laminates. Finally, numerical examples of plates under compression loading with different boundary conditions and aspect ratios are investigated. Reliable optimal solutions demonstrate the robustness and computational efficiency of the proposed optimisation methodology.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.167
Teacher spread0.163 · 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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Mechanics and MaterialsSame topicComposite Structure Analysis and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207