Continuum Modeling of Nonperiodic String-Harnessed Structures: Perturbation Theory and Experiments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The cables-to-payload mass ratio can be about 20% for aerospace structures. To ensure a successful mission, predicting the vibrations response of cable-harnessed structures is critical. It is commonplace in industry to account for the added mass of these cables and ignore the stiffness effects; however this leads to inaccurate models. The presented paper studies string-harnessed structures as a means for modeling the mass and stiffness effects of aerospace cables; damping is neglected. As periodic wrapping patterns have been modeled using a homogenization theory and experimentally validated, a natural progression of research is the study of nonperiodic wrapping patterns, which is the focus throughout this paper. A spatially dependent equation of motion is derived for the transverse vibrations of a string-harnessed structure. The equation of motion is similar in form to a spatially dependent Euler–Bernoulli beam model. The Lindstedt–Poincaré method is used to determine the frequencies and mode shapes of the system, which are then used to calculate the frequency response function. It is observed that the frequency response functions of the perturbation theory are in good agreement with experimental results.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".