Optimal Design of Hanging Truss Having SMA Wires (From Vibration Isolation and Attenuation Viewpoints)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A column-type truss structure is generally unstable without diagonal bracing members. It is, however, mechanically stable in so-called hanging configuration due to the effect of gravitational force. This kind of structure can isolate an apparatus installed at its tip end from the influence of the vibration of the support ceiling, where the hanging truss structure is placed. The relationship between the stress and strain of the shape memory alloy (SMA) material in relatively high temperature condition has a hysteretic loop, which can be adopted for the purpose of vibration attenuation and isolation. A truss structure with bracing SMA wires in hanging configuration is expected to possess both of the abilities of vibration isolation and attenuation. In this study, optimal placements of SMA wires are obtained by a GA-based approach from the vibration isolation and attenuation points of view under the constraint condition of the number of the SMA wires. Crossover and mutation operators in order to deal with the constraint condition of the number of SMA wire members are proposed. The non-dominated Pareto fronts are obtained for the cases of various numbers of SMA wire members. On the basis of the calculations, it has been confirmed that the number and the placement of the SMA wires are significant factors on the effects of vibration isolation and attenuation. Most of the optimal configurations have one common feature that the SMA wires are distributed close to the middle of the hanging truss structures and there are few SMA wires at the truss units near the support ceiling as well as the peripheral end. The placements of SMA wires in optimal solutions show, however, a tendency of decentralization in the case of emphasis on vibration isolation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".