MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002954685 · doi:10.1115/1.1334862

Finite Amplitude Azimuthal Shear Waves in a Compressible Hyperelastic Solid

2000· article· en· W2002954685 on OpenAlexaff
J. B. Haddow, Lei Jiang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Mechanics · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicElasticity and Material Modeling
Canadian institutionsMartec (Canada)University of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHyperelastic materialPhysicsMechanicsLongitudinal waveWave propagationClassical mechanicsIsotropyShear wavesAzimuthCompressibilityShear (geology)Finite element methodOpticsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lagrangian equations of motion for finite amplitude azimuthal shear wave propagation in a compressible isotropic hyperelastic solid are obtained in conservation form with a source term. A Godunov-type finite difference procedure is used along with these equations to obtain numerical solutions for wave propagation emanating from a cylindrical cavity, of fixed radius, whose surface is subjected to the sudden application of a spatially uniform azimuthal shearing stress. Results are presented for waves propagating radially outwards; however, the numerical procedure can also be used to obtain solutions if waves are reflected radially inwards from a cylindrical outer surface of the medium. A class of strain energy functions is considered, which is a compressible generalization of the Mooney-Rivlin strain energy function, and it is shown that, for this class, an azimuthal shear wave can not propagate without a coupled longitudinal wave. This is in contrast to the problem of finite amplitude plane shear wave propagation with the neo-Hookean generalization, for which a shear wave can propagate without a coupled longitudinal wave. The plane problem is discussed briefly for comparison with the azimuthal problem.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score0.547

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.203 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations10
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied MechanicsSame topicElasticity and Material ModelingFrench-language works237,207