MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404369760 · doi:10.1115/pvp2024-122525

Neural Network for Constitutive Modeling of Beam Structures

2024· article· en· W4404369760 on OpenAlexaff
Beilei Ji, Qipei Mei, Pouya Taraghi, Samer Adeeb

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstitutive equationArtificial neural networkComputer scienceBeam (structure)Finite element methodStructural engineeringArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Constitutive modeling plays a vital role in simulating the stress-strain behavior of structures within various engineering applications. Traditionally, constitutive models relied on experimental tests to accurately characterize the stress-strain relationship. In recent decades, there has been a significant increase in the development of advanced constitutive laws due to the high cost associated with testing. However, numerical computations based on advanced constitutive laws heavily relies on numerical integration which is time-consuming and computationally demanding. This leads to the need to develop an alternate approach. In this study, a neural network-based constitutive model using TensorFlow was proposed to capture the non-linear relationship between stress and strain in beam structures. A case study was conducted where the neural network-based constitutive model was implemented to predict the axial force and bending moment of the pipeline subjected to ground displacement, modeled as an Euler-Bernoulli beam with large deformations. The comparative analysis with traditional numerical integration schemes was pursued to assess the performance of the proposed model. The results showed a significant reduction in computation time when dealing with large data sizes. Additionally, the impacts of the training data samples on the applicability of the neural network constitutive model were investigated. The findings of this study support that the neural network-based constitutive model serve as a more efficient tool for extensive numerical simulations in the design and structural analysis of beam structures.

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)0.001
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.279 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207