MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2538047412 · doi:10.1109/bmas.2008.4751242

Comparative Study on Finite Element Analysis & System Model Extraction for Non-Resonant 3-DoF Microgyroscope

2008· article· en· W2538047412 on OpenAlexaff
Rana Iqtidar Shakoor, Shafaat A. Bazaz, Yongjun Lai, M. M. Hasan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced MEMS and NEMS Technologies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinite element methodTransient (computer programming)SolverGyroscopeComputer scienceEngineeringStructural engineeringAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper reports a comparative study of full transient start up analysis of a Non-Resonant Micromachined Gyroscope using Finite Element Analysis (FEA) and System Model Extraction (SME) techniques. FEA is a popular numerical technique based on Finite Element Method (FEM) for carrying out different engineering analyses. But one of the major disadvantages of this FEA is its computational time. While running multiple optimization analyses with a FE Solver, it may take days, weeks and possibly months depending on extent of optimization. In this study we initially analyzed the MEMS based microgyro on a device level using FEM. We determined the natural frequencies of the gyro along with the both static and dynamic responses of the gyro. After these device level simulations in FEA we switched to the system level simulation. Using SME we generated system model of the gyro with system level components and run a full transient startup response analysis of the device by incorporating that extracted model in INTELLISUITE circuit simulator SYNPLE. When we compared the computational time required by both techniques, we found that SME with SYNPLE is orders of magnitude faster than FEA.

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)0.000
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.449
Threshold uncertainty score0.697

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.260 · 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

Citations4
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdvanced MEMS and NEMS TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207