Closed-Form Solution of Large Deflected Cantilever Beam a gainst Follower Loading Using Complex Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The literature reveals that the non-conservative deflection of an elastic cantilever beam caused by applying follower tip loading was investigated and solved by various numerical methods like: Runge Kutta, iterative shooting, finite element, finite difference, direct iterative and non-iterative numerical methods. This is due to the fact that the Euler–Bernoulli nonlinear differential equation governing the problem contains the “slope at the free end”, this slope however needs special numerical treatment. On the other hand, some of these methods fail to find numerical solutions for extremely large loading conditions. Hence, this paper is aimed to obtain a closed-form solution for solving the large deflection of a cantilever beam opposed to a concentrated point follower load at its free end. This closed-form solution when compared with other conventional numerical approaches is characterized by simplicity, stability and straightforwardness in getting the beam deflection and slopes even for extremely large loading conditions. The closed-form solution is obtained by applying complex analysis along with elliptic-integral approach. Very good results were obtained when the elastica of the beam compared with that of various numerical methods which are used in analyzing similar problem.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".