MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2802209518 · doi:10.1139/tcsme-2006-0032

THE USE OF ENRICHED HEXAHEDRAL ELEMENTS WITH BUBBLE FUNCTIONS FOR FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS

2006· article· en· W2802209518 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shi-Pin Ho, Yen-Liang Yeh

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical Engineering · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdvanced Numerical Methods in Computational Mathematics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputationFinite element methodHexahedronNorm (philosophy)Numerical analysisElement (criminal law)MathematicsApplied mathematicsMathematical optimizationComputer scienceAlgorithmMathematical analysisEngineeringStructural engineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, the concept that adds the interior nodes of the Lagrange elements to the serendipity elements is described and a family of enriched elements is presented to improve the accuracy of finite element analysis. By the use of the static condensation technique at the element level, the extra computation time in using these elements can be ignored. Three-dimensional elastic problems are used as examples in this paper. The numerical results show that these enriched elements are more accurate than the traditional serendipity elements. The convergence rate of the enriched elements is the same as the traditional serendipity elements. In the numerical example, the error norm of the first order enriched elements can be reduced when compared with the use of the traditional serendipity element, but the computation time is increased a little. The use of enriched second and third order hexahedral elements does not only improve accuracy, but also saves the computation time for solving the system of equations, when the precondition conjugate gradient method is used to solve the system of equations. The saving of computation time is due to the decrease in the number of iteration for the iteration method.

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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.406
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.216 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions of the Canadian Society for Mechanical EngineeringSame topicAdvanced Numerical Methods in Computational MathematicsFrench-language works237,207