Contact of Planar Flexible Multibody Systems Using a Linear Complementarity Formulation
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
Abstract Descriptions leading to Linear Complementarity Problems (LCPs) are well established in the contact modeling of rigid multibody systems and have a very strong mathematical basis. These approaches yield exact solutions for contact problems consisting of contact (force/acceleration level) and impact (impulse/velocity level). By utilizing these methods, also frictional contact can be handled appropriately, see [1] and [2]. In this paper a formulation for extending these methods for consideration of planar deformable bodies is given. In the case of deformable bodies, a finite wave propagation speed is inherent and, thus, impact computations on impulse/velocity level which lead to jumps in velocity are no longer required. In this paper only the case of continual contact is taken into account. For this purpose, the complementarity relations are reformulated in such a way that contact modeling of constrained and non‐constrained planar deformable bodies is possible, too. In this formulation, deformable bodies are modeled based on the moving frame of reference approach with modal coordinates which is frequently used for the simulation of deformable multibody systems [3]. (© 2005 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim)
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it