MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2320679187 · doi:10.1139/l11-007

Finite element formulation for shear deformable thin-walled beams

2011· article· en· W2320679187 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Liping Wu, Magdi Mohareb

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComposite Structure Analysis and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Ottawa
KeywordsFinite element methodCentroidBoundary value problemShear (geology)Mathematical analysisOffset (computer science)Differential equationExact solutions in general relativityCoordinate systemMathematicsSeries (stratigraphy)Ordinary differential equationGeometryStructural engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Starting with the principle of stationary potential energy, this paper develops the governing differential equations of equilibrium and boundary conditions for shear deformable thin-walled beams with open cross-section. Unlike conventional solutions, the formulation is based on a non-orthogonal coordinate system, in which the selected origin is generally offset from the section centroid. The exact solution of the resulting coupled differential equations of equilibrium is derived and used to develop exact shape functions. A finite element based on the exact shape functions is then formulated. Through a series of examples, the adoption of non-orthogonal coordinates is shown to enable the seamless modelling of structural members with eccentric boundary conditions and (or) stepwise cross-sectional variations.

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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.170
Teacher spread0.162 · 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

Citations10
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicComposite Structure Analysis and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207