MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2891095135 · doi:10.1051/epjconf/201818301046

Prediction procedure for hail impact

2018· article· en· W2891095135 on OpenAlexaff
Simon Dousset, Jérémie Girardot, Frédéric Dau, A. Gakwaya

Bibliographic record

VenueEPJ Web of Conferences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmoothed-particle hydrodynamicsProjectileFuselageParametric statisticsDistortion (music)Computer scienceStructural engineeringParametric modelAerospace engineeringMechanical engineeringEngineeringMechanicsPhysicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The constant increase of composite materials’ performances makes them more and more used in recent aircrafts. Structures, as the wings or the fuselage, may suffer from hail impacts that can make critical damages or even perforate them. In order to guaranty the safety of passengers, aircrafts have to be certified and simulations have to demonstrate good agreements with real behaviour of the structures and the hail projectile. The aim of this work is to propose a procedure to analyse the home made manufacturing of the ice generally performed in laboratories, its mechanical characterization and a mechanical model that can predict the time-space profile of the impact force on a rigid structure. Because of the high strain level of the hail during the impact, the Smooth Particle Hydrodynamics (SPH) method will be used. Indeed, the finite elements method needs heavy remeshing that are time consuming to avoid mesh distortion. The SPH is a numerical meshless method that calculates interactions between particles at every time increment. Models available in the literature have been studied and the model of J.D. Tippmann (Tippmann, Kim, et Jennifer D. Rhymer 2013) is chosen. In this paper, the Tippman model is presented with its solving using the SPH. A parametric study is proposed in order to catch the relevant parts of this model. A simple experimental procedure is then proposed to feed the model and the results of impact simulations at different velocities are compared to experimental measurements realized in the laboratory.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.004

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEPJ Web of ConferencesSame topicLandslides and related hazardsFrench-language works237,207