Resonance Responses of Geometrically Imperfect Functionally Graded Extensible Microbeams
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper aims at analyzing the size-dependent nonlinear dynamical behavior of a geometrically imperfect microbeam made of a functionally graded (FG) material, taking into account the longitudinal, transverse, and rotational motions. The size-dependent property is modeled by means of the modified couple stress theory, the shear deformation and rotary inertia are modeled using the Timoshenko beam theory, and the graded material property in the beam thickness direction is modeled via the Mori–Tanaka homogenization technique. The kinetic and size-dependent potential energies of the system are developed as functions of the longitudinal, transverse, and rotational motions. On the basis of an energy method, the continuous models of the system motion are obtained. Upon application of a weighted-residual method, the reduced-order model is obtained. A continuation method along with an eigenvalue extraction technique is utilized for the nonlinear and linear analyses, respectively. A special attention is paid on the effects of the material gradient index, the imperfection amplitude, and the length-scale parameter on the system dynamical response.
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) | 0.000 | 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".