A Comparison Between 7- and 12-Parameter Shell Finite Elements for Large Deformation Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study two continuum shell finite elements are developed. The first one is based on the first-order shear deformation theory with seven independent parameters and the second one is based on the third-order thickness deformation theory with twelve independent parameters. Continuum shell finite elements are developed and utilized in the numerical simulations of isotropic, laminated composite, and functionally graded structures undergoing large deformations. High-order spectral interpolation of the field variables is used to avoid all forms of numerical locking, allowing the development of robust shell elements in a purely displacement based setting.\n\nThis thesis includes static and transient analysis of various structures using aforementioned two shell elements. This is the first time that the seven-parameter formulation is used to compute a full transient response of shell structures. Deflections and maximum stresses are computed and compared between the two formulations and, in some cases, also with the results obtained using commercial codes ANSYS and ABAQUS. Furthermore, the influence of the variation of the temperature through the thickness for functionally graded shells is studied. In all the simulations, static condensation of degrees of freedom associated with the internal nodes of the element is implemented, which allows us to reduce the computational time and make use of parallel computation when this feature is available. This makes the higher-order elements used computationally competitive with standard finite elements.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".