MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Model for Tangential Contact Damping Energy Dissipation Factor of Plane Joint Interfaces

2018· article· en· W2897644930 on OpenAlexaff
Jingfang Shen, YAN Hongbo, Jiajun Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueIOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdhesion, Friction, and Surface Interactions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDissipationMechanicsSurface finishFractalFractal dimensionSlip (aerodynamics)Regular polygonPhysicsPlane (geometry)Surface roughnessMathematical analysisClassical mechanicsGeometryMaterials scienceMathematicsThermodynamicsComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the comprehensive applications of Hertz contact theory and fractal method, we present the model for tangential contact damping energy dissipation factor of plane joint interfaces. The energy dissipation of the entire joint surface is estimated by energy loss equation of single micro-convex body. According to the tangential force in process of micro-convex and micro-slip, the energy storage of the micro-convex body is replaced by the equivalent, and the energy storage of the composite surface of the rectifier is obtained. On the basis of the unique conversion of energy loss and storage, a model is established. The model avoids the invariance of experimental test and enhances the visualization of theoretical derivation, and can more intuitively understand the properties of damping dissipation factor. The influence law of related parameters is obtained by numerical simulation. We can see that damping loss factor of tangential decreases first and then increases when D increase and the roughness arguments are constant. When D is about 1.25, the D reaches the least value. If the D is less than 1.5, the roughness parameter and directly proportional damping dissipation factor relations, when the fractal dimension is 1.5 exactly, the roughness parameters do not produce effect, when the D is larger than 1.5, the increase of roughness, dissipation factor decreases at the same time. Comparing with the laboratory data, the results obtained by numerical simulation are in accordance with the actual situation is found. Therefore, the model is effective in certain conditions.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.273
Threshold uncertainty score0.379

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.194 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIOP Conference Series Earth and Environmental ScienceSame topicAdhesion, Friction, and Surface InteractionsFrench-language works237,207