MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051904018 · doi:10.1115/detc2011-49016

Volumetric Contact Dynamics Models and Experimental Validation of Normal Forces for Simple Geometries

2011· article· en· W2051904018 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Boos, John McPhee

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdhesion, Friction, and Surface Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContact forceStiffnessContact dynamicsFinite element methodDynamics (music)MechanicsSimple (philosophy)Materials scienceComputer scienceStructural engineeringClassical mechanicsEngineeringPhysicsAcoustics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A volumetric contact dynamics model has been proposed for the purpose of generating reliable and rapid simulations of contact dynamics. Forces and moments between bodies in contact can be expressed in terms of the volume of interference between the undeformed geometries. This allows for the modelling of contact between complex geometries and relatively large contact surfaces, while being computationally less expensive than finite element methods. However, the volumetric model requires experimental validation. Models for simple geometries in contact have been developed for stationary and dynamic contact; an apparatus has been developed to experimentally validate these models. This paper focuses on validation of the normal contact models. Measurements of forces and displacements will be used to identify the parameters related to the normal force, i.e. the volumetric stiffness and hysteretic damping factor for metallic surfaces. The experimental measurements are compared with simulated results to assess the validity of the volumetric model.

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 score0.273
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations2
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdhesion, Friction, and Surface InteractionsFrench-language works237,207