Experimental and Numerical Modal Analysis of a Composite Rocket Structure
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is a powerful tool that can aid in the engineering design process to reduce cost and time. However, it is best used in conjunction with experimental data, through which its numerical results can be verified. This paper presents the experimental and numerical modal analyses of an experimental rocket aerostructure to verify the accuracy of the numerical models. This aerostructure has been through flight loads and a recovery. The first numerical results for the rocket showed a 96% difference with the experimental ones. Subsequently, three mass refinements were made to create calibrated FEM models whose results differed from the experimental ones by 19% to 8%. Additionally, as expected, the FEM results tended to overestimate the stiffness of structures. The numerical simulations for all components were performed through ANSYS software, and the experiments were conducted using the hammer tap test with laser vibrometers as sensors.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 it