MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405430143 · doi:10.1016/j.cja.2024.103347

Wave-based approaches for wavespace of highly contrasted structures with viscoelastic damping

2024· article· en· W4405430143 on OpenAlexafffund
Dongze Cui, Mohamed Ichchou, Noureddine Atalla, Abdelmalek Zine

Bibliographic record

VenueChinese Journal of Aeronautics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Analysis of Composite Materials
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCentre Lyonnais d'Acoustique, Université de LyonUniversité de LyonAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsViscoelasticityMaterials scienceStructural engineeringEngineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study investigates the wavespace of Highly Contrasted Structures (HCS) and Highly Dissipative Structures (HDS) by wave-based models. The Asymptotic Homogenization Method (AHM), exploits the asymptotic Zig-Zag model and homogenization technique to compute the bending wavenumbers via a 6th-order equation. The General Laminate Model (GLM) employs Mindlin’s displacement field to establish displacement-constraint relationships and resolves a quadratic Eigenvalue Problem (EVP) of the dispersion relation. The Wave Finite Element (WFE) scheme formulates the Nonlinear Eigenvalue Problem (NEP) for waves in varying directions and tracks complex wavenumbers using Weighted Wave Assurance Criteria (WWAC). Two approaches are introduced to estimate the Damping Loss Factor (DLF) of HDS, with the average DLF calculated by the modal density at various angles where non-homogeneity is present. Evaluation of robustness and accuracy is made by comparing the wavenumbers and DLF obtained from AHM and GLM with WFE. WFE is finally extended to a sandwich metastructure with a non-homogeneous core, and the Power Input Method (PIM) with Finite Element Method (FEM) data is employed to assess the average DLF, demonstrating an enhanced DLF compared to layered configurations with the same material portion, indicating increased energy dissipation due to the bending-shear coupling effects.

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 score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.229
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChinese Journal of AeronauticsSame topicStructural Analysis of Composite MaterialsFrench-language works237,207