MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3083797297 · doi:10.1115/1.4048391

Damping Mechanisms in Cable-Harnessed Structures for Space Applications: Experimental Validation

2020· article· en· W3083797297 on OpenAlexafffund
Pranav Agrawal, Armaghan Salehian

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of vibration and acoustics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVibration and Dynamic Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBeam (structure)ModalZigzagFrequency responseStructural engineeringModal analysisViscous dampingAcousticsPhysicsEngineeringMaterials scienceVibrationFinite element methodElectrical engineeringMathematicsGeometryComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this technical brief, the experimental study and model validations for the damping mechanisms of cable-harnessed beam structures are presented. The structure consists of cables wrapped around a host beam in a periodic zigzag pattern. A special case of cable attached along the beam length over its centerline is also considered. First, material damping in the cables is characterized using dynamic tests and the relevant cable damping factors are calculated for both the Kelvin–Voigt and hysteretic damping models. Experimental modal testing is then performed on the fabricated cable-harnessed beams to obtain the frequency response functions (FRFs). Finally, the experimental FRFs are compared with the damped analytical models. The test and model results are shown to be in very good agreements in predicting the structural damping induced by the cables.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of vibration and acousticsSame topicVibration and Dynamic AnalysisFrench-language works237,207