MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210632601 · doi:10.1115/imece2021-73914

Optimum Selection of Thin-Walled Laminated Composite Structures in Robot Design

2021· article· en· W4210632601 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammad Amir Khozeimeh, Reza Moazed, Reza Fotouhi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComposite Structure Analysis and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural engineeringBendingComposite numberStiffnessCross section (physics)Bending stiffnessChartBeam (structure)Materials scienceComputer scienceEngineeringComposite materialMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper, a simplified approach for the design of thin-walled laminated composite beam structures is presented. For this purpose, structural efficiency metrics have been developed that allow for the integrated selection of layup sequence, materials of construction, and cross-sectional shape of laminated composite beams. The structural efficiency metrics are plotted in design charts for axial, bending (in both cross-section’s principal directions), and torsional loading conditions. The design charts provide the designer with an accurate and efficient approach for the selection of the optimum fiber direction, number of layers in the laminate, and mass of the overall structure. The results are generated for two different sizes of envelopes to analyze various cross-sectional types and sizes. It is shown that the design charts can be applied to single open and closed loop cross sections as well as multi-cell sections. The proposed simplified approach and developed design charts have been used for increasing the bending and torsional stiffness of a laminated composite robotic arm. The results show that the design charts can be used to accurately predict stiffnesses and deformations and assist the designer in selecting the various parameters that govern the performance of laminated composite beams.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.686
Threshold uncertainty score0.461

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComposite Structure Analysis and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207