A finite element formulation for bending-torsion coupled vibration analysis of delaminated beams under combined axial load and end moment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Free vibration analysis of beams with single delamination undergoing bending-torsion coupling is made, using traditional finite element technique. The Galerkin weighted residual method is applied to convert the coupled differential equations of motion into to a discrete problem, where, in addition to the conventional mass and stiffness matrices, a delamination stiffness matrix, representing the extra stiffening effects at the delamination tips, is introduced. The linear eigenvalue problem resulting from the discretization along the length of the beam is solved to determine the frequencies and modes of free vibration. Both “free mode” and “constrained mode” delamination models are considered in formulation, and it is shown that the continuity (both kinematic and force) conditions at the beam span-wise locations corresponding to the extremities of the delaminated region, in particular, play a great role in “free mode” model formulation. Current trends in the literature are examined, and insight into different types of modeling techniques and constraint types are introduced. In addition, the data previously available in the literature and those obtained from a finite element-based commercial software are utilized to validate the presented modeling scheme and to verify the correctness of natural frequencies of the systems analyzed here. The paper ends with general discussions and conclusions on the presented theories and modeling approaches.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".