MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2801687364 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2006-0030

VIBRO-ACOUSTIC BEHAVIORS OF FLAT SANDWICH COMPOSITE PANELS

2006· article· en· W2801687364 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Sebastian Ghinet, Noureddine Atalla

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAcoustic Wave Phenomena Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSandwich panelComposite numberContext (archaeology)Dispersion relationSandwich-structured compositeEigenvalues and eigenvectorsComputationModalDispersion (optics)PolynomialMathematical analysisStructural engineeringMathematicsAcousticsMaterials sciencePhysicsEngineeringComposite materialOpticsAlgorithmGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main objective of this paper is to present a theoretical approach to model the vibro-acoustic behavior of flat sandwich composite panels. Two models are studied: symmetrical laminate composite and sandwich composite panel. The theories are developed in a wave approach context. It is shown that a discrete layers sandwich composite panel modeling type leads to a 12 th order relation of dispersion while a laminate composite panel modeling leads to a 6 th order relation of dispersion. The two models give similar results at low frequencies but the modeling of a sandwich panel using the laminate panel theory leads to inaccuracies at high frequencies. The dispersion relations are first solved in the context of generalized polynomial complex eigenvalues problems. Next, the dispersion relations are used to derive the analytical expression of the critical frequencies and to calculate the natural frequencies of the panel. Using the dispersion relation’s solutions, the study is then focused on the numerical computation of the group velocity, the modal density and the total transmission loss.

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 score0.839
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations24
Published2006
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical EngineeringSame topicAcoustic Wave Phenomena ResearchFrench-language works237,207