Development of a strain-gage installation method for high-speed impact of strikers on a Split Hopkinson bar apparatus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When designing a split Hopkinson system, the yield strength of the selected pressure bar material determines the maximum stress attainable within deforming samples and also, the maximum striker velocity that is usable to prevent plasticity in bars. In practice, to avoid strain gages stripping, the velocity of the striker is limited by the instantaneous particles acceleration generated in the bars. As a consequence, the full potential of the Hopkinson system can not be used. Therefore, for material having very high yield strength, it is very difficult to induce the required stress wave to create plasticity using a split Hopkinson apparatus. The idea of using an improved method for installing strain gages to withstand very high accelerations is very important for high dynamic loading using the split Hopkinson bar system. This paper compares standard strain gage installation procedures with a new approach. Data obtained for a material showing no plasticity at a normal operating impact velocity range of 22 m/s while showing usable level of plasticity when using a high impact velocity of 37 m/s is discussed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".