Mechanical Performance of Yurt Assemblies: A Finite Element Analysis Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study presents a comprehensive finite element analysis (FEA) of the structural behavior of yurt assemblies subjected to extreme loading conditions, including a gravity load of 180 N and a wind load of 1984.5 N. The modeling process encompasses the geometric definition of nodes and elements, formulation of element stiffness matrices, coordinate transformations, global stiffness matrix assembly, imposition of loads and boundary conditions, and computation of nodal displacements and internal forces. The analysis reveals that the yurt structure exhibits stable mechanical performance under the specified loading conditions, with a maximum apex displacement of only 3.5 mm. Internal force distribution aligns with fundamental principles of structural mechanics: vertical support members sustain the highest compressive force (268.3 N), while bottom horizontal members primarily undergo tensile loading (142.1 N). The maximum compressive and tensile stresses are found to be 0.89 MPa and 0.47 MPa, respectively. When compared to the yield strength of steel (235 MPa), the corresponding safety factors are approximately 264 and 500, significantly surpassing standard design criteria. These findings underscore the structural efficiency and high safety factor of yurt configurations under combined loading scenarios.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".