MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985611646 · doi:10.1115/1.3063634

An Experimental Study of Contact Forces During Oblique Elastic Impact

2009· article· en· W1985611646 on OpenAlexafffund
Philip P. Garland, Robert J. Rogers

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Mechanics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicForce Microscopy Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsContact forceForce transducerOblique caseMechanicsMaterials sciencePiezoelectricityNormal forceWaveformTransducerImpactPendulumAcousticsClassical mechanicsPhysicsVoltageComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low and high speed impacts frequently occur in many mechanical processes. Although widely studied, rarely are normal and tangential force time-waveforms measured, as generally these are very difficult measurements to do accurately. This paper presents, for the first time, a comprehensive set of experimentally obtained contact force waveforms during oblique elastic impact for a range of initial velocities and incidence angles. The experimental apparatus employed in this study was a simple pendulum consisting of a spherical steel striker suspended from a steel wire. The contact force time-waveforms were collected using a tri-axial piezoelectric force transducer sandwiched between a spherical target cap and a large block. The measured contact forces showed that loading was essentially limited to the normal and tangential directions in the horizontal plane. Analysis of the maximum normal and tangential forces for the near glancing angles of incidence indicated a friction coefficient that varies linearly with initial tangential velocity. The essential features of tangential force reversal during impact predicted by previous continuum models are confirmed by the experimental force results.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.456

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.295 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied MechanicsSame topicForce Microscopy Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207