MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2750040232 · doi:10.1007/s11340-017-0323-x

Polymeric Hopkinson Bar-Confinement Chamber Apparatus to Evaluate Fluid Cavitation

2017· article· en· W2750040232 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael Bustamante, D. Singh, Duane S. Cronin

Bibliographic record

VenueExperimental Mechanics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCombustion and Detonation Processes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaDefence Research and Development Canada
KeywordsCavitationMaterials scienceBar (unit)Split-Hopkinson pressure barChamber pressureComposite materialMechanicsStrain ratePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mild traumatic brain injury associated with blast exposure is an important issue, and cavitation of the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) has been suggested as a potential injury mechanism; however, physical measurements are required to evaluate cavitation thresholds. Modifications to a Split Hopkinson Pressure Bar (SHPB) apparatus were investigated with the aim to generate localized fluid cavitation and measure the cavitation threshold of fluids. The proposed design incorporated a novel closed cavitation chamber to generate localized cavitation resulting from a reflected compression pulse, which was generated by a spherical steel striker and Polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) incident bar. A numerical model of the incident bar was developed and validated with 24 independent tests (cross-correlation: 0.970–0.997), and this was extended to a numerical model of the apparatus including the chamber, validated with 27 independent tests (cross-correlation: 0.921) to predict the tensile fluid pressure in the chamber. Tests on distilled water were performed with comparable numerical results for the chamber strain (R 2 : 0.875) and chamber end-wall velocity (R 2 : 0.992). The pressure in the chamber was determined from the model to avoid introducing a nucleation site via a pressure gauge, and was verified with a first-order approximation showing good agreement (R 2 : 0.892). The 50% probability of cavitation for distilled water was −3.32 MPa ±3%, comparable to values in the literature. This novel apparatus, including a closed confinement chamber integrated with a polymeric SHPB apparatus was able to create localized fluid cavitation with loading comparable to blast exposure. Future studies will include the measurement of CSF cavitation pressure.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations14
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExperimental MechanicsSame topicCombustion and Detonation ProcessesFrench-language works237,207