Analysis of Smart Structures with Piezoelectric Strips Subjected to Unsteady Aerodynamic Loads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A method using piezoelectric strips bonded on thin structures to detect the presence of cracks for structural health monitoring is presented in this paper. The method uses pairs of piezoelectric strips glued at the same location on the two sides of the structure and is based on the measured voltage difference between the two strips of a pair, which is proportional to the differential strain changes due to the presence of a crack. The structural analysis presented in this paper uses a nonlinear model for the cracks and a finite element formulation for the piezoelectric strips coupled with the structure. A panel method is used to determine the unsteady aerodynamic loads acting on the oscillating wing structure. This study includes the dynamic analysis in the frequency domain of a cracked plate undergoing forced flexural vibrations in a range of frequencies produced by a pair of piezoelectric actuators. The dynamic analysis in the time domain is also performed for the oscillating structures with piezoelectric strips subjected to mechanical or aerodynamic unsteady loads. It was found that this method has a good sensitivity in detecting the cracks in the wing structures subjected to oscillatory aerodynamic loads.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".