MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4232165791 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14654778.v1

Nondestructive Evaluation Of A Polymer Composite Hip Implant Using Lock-In Thermography

2021· preprint· en· W4232165791 on OpenAlexaff
Ehsan Rahim

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and Processes
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThermographyStrain gaugeMaterials scienceFinite element methodImplantComposite materialComposite numberStress (linguistics)Stress–strain curveStrain (injury)Structural engineeringBiomedical engineeringSurgeryMedicineAnatomyOpticsEngineeringDeformation (meteorology)Infrared

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lock-in thermography, combined with finite element analysis and experimental testing, was used to investigate the stress/strain pattern in a novel composite hip implant made of carbon fibre and polyamide 12 (CF/PA12). In this study, the geometry of the hip implant was first modelled and analysed in ANSYS workbench 11. Different virtual loads of 800N, 1400N and 2200N were applied on the finite element model of the hip stem at an adduction angle of 15º, thereby replicating the present experimental setup. The values of strains obtained were confirmed by replicating the experiment by using strain gauges. A Pearson's correlation (R²=0.98) was obtained, which indicated good agreement between the FEA model and experimental hip stem. The hip implant was again subjected to similar loading conditions, and stresses were recorded by using a thermal camera at corresponding vertices. The comparison of results showed good agreement between the values of stress calculated from the strain gauge experiment and stress obtained from thermography. This study showed that it was possible to find stresses in a hip implant reliably by thermography.

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 score0.462
Threshold uncertainty score0.911

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdditive Manufacturing Materials and ProcessesFrench-language works237,207