MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2990694765 · doi:10.3390/ma12233817

FE Analysis of Critical Testing Parameters in Kolsky Bar Experiments for Elastomers at High Strain Rate

2019· article· en· W2990694765 on OpenAlexafffund
Muhammad Salman Chaudhry, Aleksander Czekanski

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicHigh-Velocity Impact and Material Behavior
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsElastomerMaterials scienceBar (unit)Finite element methodDeformation (meteorology)Natural rubberStrain rateSplit-Hopkinson pressure barStructural engineeringComposite materialDynamic testingMechanical impedanceElectrical impedanceEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main aim of this research is to present complete methodological guidelines for dynamic characterization of elastomers when subjected to strain rates of 100/s-10,000/s. We consider the following three aspects: (i) the design of high strain rate testing apparatus, (ii) finite element analysis for the optimization of the experimental setup, and (iii) experimental parameters and validation for the response of an elastomeric specimen. To test low impedance soft materials, design of a modified Kolsky bar is discussed. Based on this design, the testing apparatus was constructed, validated, and optimized numerically using finite element methods. Furthermore, investigations on traditional pulse shaping techniques and a new design for pulse shaper are described. The effect of specimen geometry on the homogeneous deformation has been thoroughly accounted for. Using the optimized specimen geometry and pulse shaping technique, nitrile butadiene rubber was tested at different strain rates, and the experimental findings were compared to numerical predictions.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterialsSame topicHigh-Velocity Impact and Material BehaviorFrench-language works237,207