Bibliographic record
Abstract
As part of a project to develop methods for modelling the performance of engine mounts, several oil resistant alternative materials were prepared, and compared to conventional materials from mounts that are currently in service on the Canadian Patrol Frigate (CPF). This report describes the preparation and characterization of these elastomers, including two that were prepared at Platform Sciences Laboratory (PSL) in Melbourne, Australia under the Canada/ Australia MOU on Defence Science and Technology, Subsidiary Arrangement No. 16, Vibration Isolation Materials For Naval Vessels. The dynamic mechanical properties of the elastomers were determined as a function of frequency and strain amplitude. At strain amplitudes > 400 micrometers the storage moduli were generally independent of amplitude, once the moduli were corrected for changes in sample cross-sectional area resulting from tensile pre-strain. The storage moduli at 1 Hz, 20 deg C were in the range 3-7 MPa. The loss factors of the elastomers at 1 Hz, 20 deg C varied considerably, from 0.02 for natural rubber to 0.27 for ethylene acrylic elastomer. Swelling experiments of the elastomers in diesel fuel and lubricating oil demonstrated that the two elastomers prepared by PSL were in fact quite resistant to hydrocarbons. However, the hydrocarbon compatibility data for nitrile rubber/ plasticized PVC blend suggest that some plasticizer leaching occurred on exposure to lubricating oil. The frequency-dependent dynamic mechanical properties of the elastomers presented in this report were used in VAST Finite Element models of engine mounts, and in VVES models of engine vibration isolation systems. Hydrocarbon compatibility experiments suggest that ethylene acrylic elastomer would be a suitable replacement for natural rubber and neoprene rubber in engine mounts where exposure to hydrocarbon fluids is a concern.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".