MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4251311942 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14654742

An investigation into the free vibrations of carbon nanotubes using analytical and finite element methods

2021· preprint· en· W4251311942 on OpenAlexaff
Ishan Ali Khan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComposite Structure Analysis and Optimization
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinite element methodEigenvalues and eigenvectorsCarbon nanotubeEuler's formulaVibrationTimoshenko beam theoryMaterials scienceNonlinear systemDisplacement (psychology)Stiffness matrixNormal modeGalerkin methodMathematical analysisPhysicsMathematicsComposite materialThermodynamics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since their discovery, immense attention has been given to carbon nanotubes (CNTs), due to their exceptional thermal, electronic and mechanical properties and, therefore, the wide range of applications in which they are, or can be potentially, employed. Hence, it is important that all the properties of carbon nanotubes are studied extensively. This thesis studies the vibrational frequencies of double-walled and triple-walled CNTs, with and without an elastic medium surrounding them, by using Finite Element Method (FEM) and Dynamic Stiffness Matrix (DSM) formulations, considering them as Euler-Bernoulli beams coupled with van der Waals interaction forces. For FEM modelling, the linear eigenvalue problem is obtained using Galerkin weighted residual approach. The natural frequencies and mode shapes are derived from eigenvalues and eigenvectors, respectively. For DSM formulation of double-walled CNTs, a nonlinear eigenvalue problem is obtained by enforcing displacement and load end conditions to the exact solution of single equation achieved by combining the coupled governing equations. The natural frequencies are obtained using Wittrick-Williams algorithm. FEM formulation is also applied to both double and triple-walled CNTs modelled as nonlocal Euler-Bernoulli beam. The natural frequencies obtained for all the cases, are in agreement with the values provided in literature.

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)0.001
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 score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.275 · 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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicComposite Structure Analysis and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207