Filtering by
- All Subjects: engineering
- Creators: Mignolet, Marc
Based on findings of previous studies, there was speculation that two well-known experimental design software packages, JMP and Design Expert, produced varying power outputs given the same design and user inputs. For context and scope, another popular experimental design software package, Minitab® Statistical Software version 17, was added to the comparison. The study compared multiple test cases run on the three software packages with a focus on 2k and 3K factorial design and adjusting the standard deviation effect size, number of categorical factors, levels, number of factors, and replicates. All six cases were run on all three programs and were attempted to be run at one, two, and three replicates each. There was an issue at the one replicate stage, however—Minitab does not allow for only one replicate full factorial designs and Design Expert will not provide power outputs for only one replicate unless there are three or more factors. From the analysis of these results, it was concluded that the differences between JMP 13 and Design Expert 10 were well within the margin of error and likely caused by rounding. The differences between JMP 13, Design Expert 10, and Minitab 17 on the other hand indicated a fundamental difference in the way Minitab addressed power calculation compared to the latest versions of JMP and Design Expert. This was found to be likely a cause of Minitab’s dummy variable coding as its default instead of the orthogonal coding default of the other two. Although dummy variable and orthogonal coding for factorial designs do not show a difference in results, the methods affect the overall power calculations. All three programs can be adjusted to use either method of coding, but the exact instructions for how are difficult to find and thus a follow-up guide on changing the coding for factorial variables would improve this issue.
A novel, alternative, and systematic framework based on a nonlocal lattice particle model is proposed in this study. The uniqueness of the proposed model is the inclusion of both pair-wise local and multi-body nonlocal potentials in the formulation. First, the basic ideas of the proposed framework for 2D isotropic solid are presented. Derivations for triangular and square lattice structure are discussed in detail. Both mechanical deformation and fracture process are simulated and model verification and validation are performed with existing analytical solutions and experimental observations. Following this, the extension to general 3D isotropic solids based on the proposed local and nonlocal potentials is given. Three cubic lattice structures are discussed in detail. Failure predictions using the 3D simulation are compared with experimental testing results and very good agreement is observed. Next, a lattice rotation scheme is proposed to account for the material orientation in modeling anisotropic solids. The consistency and difference compared to the classical material tangent stiffness transformation method are discussed in detail. The implicit and explicit solution methods for the proposed lattice particle model are also discussed. Finally, some conclusions and discussions based on the current study are drawn at the end.
What should the control system bandwidth be vis--vis the flapping frequency (so that averaging the nonlinear system is valid)?
When is first order averaging sufficient? When is higher order averaging necessary?
When can wing mass be neglected and when does wing mass become critical to model?
This includes how and when the rules given can be tightened; i.e. made less conservative.