MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413987220 · doi:10.1177/10812865251353788

Optimizing stiffener configuration and buckling performance of composite panels under in-plane shear: A hybrid ANN-FEA approach

2025· article· en· W4413987220 on OpenAlexaff
Rongmei Liu, Keyin Zhou, Nan Sun, Furui Shi, Kun Song, Guang Yang, Jie Zheng

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematics and Mechanics of Solids · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Health Monitoring Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsBucklingFinite element methodStructural engineeringComposite numberShear (geology)Materials scienceEngineeringMathematicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Predicting buckling loads and optimizing stiffener configurations for composite stiffened panels present significant challenges due to nonlinear behavior and the computational demands of iterative simulations by traditional finite element analysis (FEA). This study addresses these challenges by integrating artificial neural networks (ANNs) with FEA to develop an efficient and accurate predictive framework. An in-plane shear load experiment was designed and conducted to validate the combined ANN-FEA model, which was further utilized to investigate buckling phenomena and provide initial predictions of critical buckling loads. The FEA results demonstrated that the stiffener configuration significantly affects load-carrying capacity, underscoring its critical role in structural performance. To reduce the computational intensity of FEA, ANN was trained on a subset of FEA-generated data, achieving high predictive accuracy for buckling loads with reduced modeling effort. The proposed hybrid approach successfully optimized stiffener parameters, offering a robust solution for improving the design and performance of composite stiffened panels under shear loading.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.687
Threshold uncertainty score0.425

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematics and Mechanics of SolidsSame topicStructural Health Monitoring TechniquesFrench-language works237,207