Numerical simulation and constructal design applied to plates with different heights of traverse and longitudinal stiffeners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Martins Nogueira, Vinícius Torres Pinto, Luiz Alberto Oliveira Rocha, Elizaldo Domingues dos Santos and Liércio André Isoldi Right click to download the paper PDF (550K) Abstract: This study applied the Constructal Design Method (CDM) associated with the Finite Element Method (FEM) through computational models to perform a geometric analysis on rectangular stiffened plates of steel subjected to a uniform transverse loading, in order to minimize its maximum and central out-of-plane deflections. Considering a non-stiffened plate as reference and maintaining the total volume of steel constant, a portion of material volume deducted from its thickness was transformed into stiffeners through the ϕ parameter, which represents the ratio between the material volume of the stiffeners and the reference plate. Adopting ϕ = 0.30, 27 geometric arrangements of stiffened plates were established, being 9 arrangements for each 3 different stiffeners' thicknesses adopted: ts = 6.35 mm, ts = 12.70 mm and ts = 25.40 mm. For each ts value, the number of longitudinal (Nls) and transverse (Nts) stiffeners were varied from 2 to 4. Thus, in each plate arrangement configured, the influence of the ratio between the height of the transverse and longitudinal stiffeners (hts/hls) was analyzed, taking into account the values 0.50; 0.75; 1.00; 1.25; 1.50; 1.75 and 2.00, regarding to the maximum and central deflections. The results have shown that transforming a portion of steel from a non-stiffened reference plate into stiffeners can reduce the maximum and central deflections by more than 90%. Moreover, it was observed that to reduce the deflections it is more effective consider hts > hls, once the ratio hts/hls = 2.00 was the one that led to the better mechanical behavior among the analyzed cases.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".