Response of split Hopkinson pressure bars to end-surface damage
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SHPB testing is one of the most widely used methods to characterize materials at high strain rates in order to provide data for the development of constitutive models. However, to produce reliable results, great care most be taken in data acquisition and processing. For example, during a routine test series, our surface bars were damaged. Control tests done on samples made of a well characterized Al 6061-T6 showed a significant alteration of the response of the system. Therefore, a study was initiated to understand the influence of surface damage on the response of the Hopkinson bar system. The results obtained from the damaged bar were compared with those from a test series using gaps that simulate potential damage defects. Results showed a similarity between data generated by gaps and damaged bars and suggested the importance of maintaining bars to a high quality surface finish. Comparisons of 3 lubricants were also done. Preliminary results showed a variation on the response ranging from negligible to significant. Finally, the influence of surface finish roughness ranging from RA4 to RA60 was investigated.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it