Impact Resistance and Specific Energy Absorption Efficiency Limits of Periodic Cellular Solids
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
View Video Presentation: https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2022-1093.vid Cellular solids are known to have the highest energy absorption of any material and, in particular, the subset periodic lattice materials are of interest due to their customizable and repeatable behavior. Using a computational method validated by data previously published in literature, energy absorption indexes – including energy absorption efficiency, densification strain, and energy absorption – are determined for a variety of unit cell topologies and across a range of relative densities in order to quantify and compare their energy absorption capabilities. Utilizing a Design of Experiments method, with impact energy ranging from 0.02 J to 562.5 J, limits for energy absorption efficiency, densification strain, plateau stress, and energy absorption are observed. We note that the cubic unit cell has the highest energy absorption at densification strain, relating to it having the highest stiffness in the direction of impact; for relative densities of 0.10, 0.15, and 0.20, the cubic unit cell has energy absorption values of 116.8 J, 174.5 J, and 255.8 J, respectively. The topology with the lowest energy absorption was the octahedron, while octet and FCC topology values were slightly greater than those values of the octahedron. We also observe the minimum and maximum of the ratio of final internal energy to initial kinetic energy, noting associated impact energies.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it