MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909821396 · doi:10.1177/0731684418824997

Dynamic response of single-walled carbon nanotubes based on various shell theories

2019· article· en· W2909821396 on OpenAlexafffund
Jorge Palacios Moreno, Rajamohan Ganesan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCarbon Nanotubes in Composites
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersConsejo Nacional de Ciencia y TecnologíaConcordia University
KeywordsCarbon nanotubeZigzagMaterials scienceFinite element methodShell (structure)StiffnessModal analysisModalBoundary value problemNanotechnologyComposite materialStructural engineeringEngineeringMathematicsGeometryMathematical analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carbon nanotubes are used in several engineering applications because of their superior mechanical properties. Scientific works still need to be carried out, especially on their dynamic response. These studies mainly focus on modal analysis, considering zigzag and armchair nanotubes, and sometimes, varying chirality. However, these works do not present any results on the steady-state responses. Therefore, the objective of this paper is to perform different studies, in terms of the stiffness response, modal analysis and steady-state response of single-walled carbon nanotubes by using a 3D finite-element model of the single-walled carbon nanotube, under different types of boundary conditions, to provide more results in this field. The single-walled carbon nanotube is modeled as a space frame structure by using the Morse potential and as a thin shell model based on various shell theories. A static analysis is performed to compare the stress–strain behavior between the Morse potential and the thin shell model. A parametric study on chirality effects and aspect ratio is also conducted to determine which shell theory is more suitable to model the mechanical behavior of single-walled carbon nanotubes. Finally, the analysis of harmonic response is conducted to describe the steady-state response between both the models.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.770

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Reinforced Plastics and CompositesSame topicCarbon Nanotubes in CompositesFrench-language works237,207