A Parallel Approach of the Enhanced Craig–Bampton Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The enhanced Craig–Bampton (ECB) method is a novel extension of the original Craig–Bampton (CB) method, which has been widely used for component mode synthesis (CMS). The ECB method, using residual modal compensation that is neglected in the CB method, provides dramatic accuracy improvement of reduced matrices without an increasing number of eigenbasis. However, it also needs additional computational requirements to treat the residual flexibility. In this paper, an efficient parallelization of the ECB method is presented to handle this issue and accelerate the applicability for large-scale structural vibration problems. A new ECB formulation within a substructuring strategy is derived to achieve better scalability. The parallel implementation is based on OpenMP parallel architecture. METIS graph partitioning and Linear Algebra Package (LAPACK) are used to automated algebraic partitioning and computational linear algebra, respectively. Numerical examples are presented to evaluate the accuracy, scalability, and capability of the proposed parallel ECB method. Consequently, based on this work, one can expect effective computation of the ECB method as well as accuracy improvement.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".