MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393261308 · doi:10.18280/mmep.110310

Effect of the Cross-Sectional Shape on the Dynamic Response of a Cantilever Steel Beam Using Three Modal Analysis Methods

2024· article· en· W4393261308 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tariq Khalid Abdulrazzaq, Yasir Hassan Ali, Jamal Nayief Sultan, Haitham M. Waddullah

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Modelling and Engineering Problems · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCantileverStructural engineeringModalModal analysisBeam (structure)Materials scienceFinite element methodEngineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main method for determining the vibration characteristics of engineering constructions is modal analysis.It's a way of analyzing a system's mode shapes, natural frequencies, and damping factor.The dynamic response of cantilever beams is determined in this work with different cross-sectional shapes to find the effect of eccentricity on the dynamic response of the cantilever beam.The main goal of this research is to find and detect the natural frequencies and mode shapes of a Structural Steel cantilever beam with different eccentricities and to identify flexural or torsional natural frequencies, as well as their mode shapes that could be confused with transverse natural frequencies, and to compare the results with analytical and experimental methodologies.Results showed that torsional natural frequencies remained within the transverse natural frequency.It can be shown that, the increase of eccentricity in the cross section decreases the natural frequencies and especially the torsional natural frequencies.The results were compared experimentally and numerically using ANSYS 16.1 software.There is a strong link between the mathematical, FEA, and experimental results.The latest results can be used to calculate failure loads in a variety of situations.The mathematical application of Euler's Bernoulli's beam concept was applied.The results of the three ways have been declared satisfactory.

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)0.002
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.334
Threshold uncertainty score0.466

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Modelling and Engineering ProblemsSame topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207