MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2731837221 · doi:10.1109/cec.2017.7969359

Optimal vibration control and innovization for rectangular plate

2017· article· en· W2731837221 on OpenAlexaff
Shamim Mashrouteh, Shahryar Rahnamayan, Ebrahim Esmailzadeh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAeroelasticity and Vibration Control
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActuatorCantileverControl theory (sociology)GRASPVibration controlObservabilityGenetic algorithmActive vibration controlController (irrigation)Piezoelectric sensorVibrationComputer scienceMaximizationPiezoelectricityEngineeringControl (management)Mathematical optimizationMathematicsAcousticsStructural engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Vibration control of flexible structures has always been one of the most important issues and Among variant available control methods, active vibration control using piezoelectric sensors and actuators has become popular due to its high efficiency and flexibility for designing a control system. The main concern in designing a control system with piezoelectric patches is finding best position for patches. On the other hand, number of used sensors and actuators is another important issue which affects the costs of the project as well as the performance. The main goal of the present study is to control oscillation of a rectangular plate using minimum number of piezoelectric sensors and actuators (i.e., objective one) and finding their optimum placement to get the maximum possible performance (i.e., objective two); the mentioned two objectives are in conflict. The plate have been mathematically modeled using the Kirchhoff-Love theory. By considering the piezoelectric sensor-actuators effects, the control equation of the cantilever plate has been obtained. In order to find the optimum number and placement of the sensors and actuators, the multi-objective genetic algorithm (GA) has been used and the objective functions have been defined based on maximization of observability and countability indexes of the cantilever plate. After conducting the optimization process, a few thumb rules have been extracted using the innovization technique. The results have been verified by implementing the designed controller using the optimum solution found by optimization method. The importance of the rules found by innovization technique have been illustrated in the numerical discussion.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAeroelasticity and Vibration ControlFrench-language works237,207