MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4205116337 · doi:10.3390/applmech3010007

Dynamic Finite Element Modelling and Vibration Analysis of Prestressed Layered Bending–Torsion Coupled Beams

2022· article· en· W4205116337 on OpenAlexafffund
MirTahmaseb Kashani, Seyed M. Hashemi

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Mechanics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComposite Structure Analysis and Optimization
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFaculty of Engineering and Architectural Science, Ryerson University
KeywordsFinite element methodStructural engineeringTorsion (gastropod)VibrationBending momentNonlinear systemHomogenization (climate)Beam (structure)StiffnessTimoshenko beam theoryMaterials scienceEngineeringPhysicsAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Free vibration analysis of prestressed, homogenous, Fiber-Metal Laminated (FML) and composite beams subjected to axial force and end moment is revisited. Finite Element Method (FEM) and frequency-dependent Dynamic Finite Element (DFE) models are developed and presented. The frequency results are compared with those obtained from the conventional FEM (ANSYS, Canonsburg, PA, USA) as well as the Homogenization Method (HM). Unlike the FEM, the application of the DFE formulation leads to a nonlinear eigenvalue problem, which is solved to determine the system’s natural frequencies and modes. The governing differential equations of coupled flexural–torsional vibrations, resulting from the end moment, are developed using Euler–Bernoulli bending and St. Venant torsion beam theories and assuming linear harmonic motion and linearly elastic materials. Illustrative examples of prestressed layered, FML, and unidirectional composite beam configurations, exhibiting geometric bending-torsion coupling, are studied. The presented DFE and FEM results show excellent agreement with the homogenization method and ANSYS modeling results, with the DFE’s rates of convergence surpassing all. An investigation is also carried out to examine the effects of various combined axial loads and end moments on the stiffness and fundamental frequencies of the structure. An illustrative example, demonstrating the application of the presented methods to the buckling analysis of layered beams is also presented.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.184
Teacher spread0.179 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied MechanicsSame topicComposite Structure Analysis and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207