MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6983468965

Model updating and damage detection of an aluminum truss with double eigenvalues

2007· article· en· W6983468965 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueDORA Empa (Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology (Empa)) · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCensus and Population Estimation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEigenvalues and eigenvectorsTrussFinite element methodEigenvalue perturbationVibrationEigenvalues and eigenvectors of the second derivativeModal matrix
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Damage in a truss is detected by updating a finite element model before and after\ndamage has occurred. A sensitivity-based update method is used, which requires the derivatives\nof eigenvalues and eigenvectors of the finite element model. Since the truss is symmetric, it has\ndouble eigenvalues, and the corresponding eigenvectors are non-unique. The problem manifests\nitself typically in that the calculated eigenvectors are rotated with respect to the measured eigenvectors.\nThe theory of eigenvector derivatives in the case of multiple eigenvalues is reviewed.\nWith this theory, unique eigenvectors can be determined but they depend on the update\nparameter under consideration. As an <i>ad hoc</i> strategy, the eigenvectors that are closest to the\nmeasured ones are selected, assuming that the corresponding parameter is the one that presumably\nwill undergo the largest change during the update. In this way, the calculated eigenvectors\nare automatically rotated to the measured ones. The algorithm is applied to an aluminum truss\nthat has been tested experimentally at the University of Sherbrooke. Eigenvalues and eigenvectors\nwere determined from ambient vibration tests. Damage has been induced by removing a diagonal\nelement. The algorithm handles well the case of double eigenvalues and predicts accurately\nthe induced damage.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.659

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.317
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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDORA Empa (Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology (Empa))Same topicCensus and Population EstimationFrench-language works237,207