Identification of Hyperelastic Material Parameters of Elastomers by Reverse Engineering Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Simulating the mechanical behavior of rubbers is widely performed with hyperelastic material models by determining their parameters. Traditionally, several loading modes, namely uniaxial tensile, planar equibiaxial, and volumetric, are considered to identify hyperelastic material models. This procedure is mainly used to determine hyperelastic material parameters accurately. On the contrary, using reverse engineering approaches, iterative finite element analyses, artificial neural networks, and virtual field methods to identify hyperelastic material parameters can provide accurate results that require no coupon material testing. In the current study, hyperelastic material parameters of selected rubbers (neoprene, silicone, and natural rubbers) were determined using an artificial neural network (ANN) model. Finite element analyses of O-ring tension and O-ring compression were simulated to create a data set to train the ANN model. Then, the ANN model was employed to identify the hyperelastic material parameters of the selected rubbers. Our study demonstrated that hyperelastic material parameters of any rubbers could be obtained directly from component experimental data without performing coupon tests.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".