MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387986622 · doi:10.7712/120123.10717.20068

SENSITIVITY TO DAMPING IN NONLINEAR DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

2023· article· en· W4387986622 on OpenAlexaff
Terje Haukaas

Bibliographic record

VenueCOMPDYN Proceedings · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering Design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTangent stiffness matrixSensitivity (control systems)Nonlinear systemMathematical analysisTensor (intrinsic definition)Eigenvalues and eigenvectorsMatrix (chemical analysis)Damping matrixDisplacement (psychology)Stiffness matrixMathematicsBilinear interpolationStiffnessTangentControl theory (sociology)PhysicsGeometryMaterials scienceEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Exact response sensitivities are derived and calculated for nonlinear dynamic analysis with Rayleigh damping formulated in terms of the current tangent stiffness matrix.The derivations show that the third-order tensor formed by the derivative of the tangent stiffness matrix with respect to the displacement vector is required.That quantity is non-zero only for material models that feature nonlinearity in at least a portion of their stress-strain curve.Bilinear models do not have that characteristic.The Bouc-Wen material model is selected in this paper to verify the implementations.That model exhibits a smooth transition between the elastic and the yield state.In order to obtain correct response sensitivities, it is necessary to let the third-order tensor amend the coefficient matrix of the system of equations that produce the sensitivity results.This paper also presents exact response sensitivities for modal damping and Rayleigh damping with coefficients implicitly specified as a target damping at two natural frequencies.Eigenvalue derivatives are implemented in order to calculate results for those cases.The amendment of the coefficient matrix is then asymmetric.Examples are presented to show the sensitivity of the displacement response with respect to four groups of parameters: material properties, crosssection geometry, mass, and parameters of the damping model.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCOMPDYN ProceedingsSame topicProbabilistic and Robust Engineering DesignFrench-language works237,207