MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2488853324 · doi:10.2514/1.j055134

Homogenization Modeling of Periodically Wrapped String-Harnessed Beam Structures: Experimental Validation

2016· article· en· W2488853324 on OpenAlexaff
Blake Martin, Armaghan Salehian

Bibliographic record

VenueAIAA Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVibration and Dynamic Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInflatableHomogenization (climate)Bending stiffnessStiffnessVibrationTransverse planeStructural engineeringPhysicsMechanicsEngineeringAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

High-flexibility, small-mass, and high-bandwidth controllers required for inflatable space missions need quite accurate models to predict higher-order dynamics of these structures. Some major components often ignored in dynamic analysis of space structures that result in model inaccuracies are space flight cables. The cables-to-payload-mass ratio can be about 20% in a traditional space structure; this number can increase significantly for inflatable structures due to their extremely light weights. As such, these cables can have significant impacts on the structural dynamics. The presented paper considers string-harnessed beam structures as a way to study the mass and stiffness effects of these cables. As a preliminary step, damping is ignored in the presented models. A homogenization technique is applied to develop the governing partial differential equation for the transverse bending coordinate of vibration of the string-harnessed beam structures. A periodic wrapping pattern is considered for the string throughout this paper. The frequency response functions for the continuum model are then compared to the experimental results, for which strong agreements are observed.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations17
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAIAA JournalSame topicVibration and Dynamic AnalysisFrench-language works237,207