MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391783463 · doi:10.1177/17543371241231358

Synthetic turf finite element model development and validation

2024· article· en· W4391783463 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Bustamante, Brock Watson, Matheus A. Correia, Aleksander Rycman, Jared Yoder, Cody M. O’Cain, Gwansik Park, Philipe Aldahir, Duane S. Cronin

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part P Journal of Sports Engineering and Technology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComputational Fluid Dynamics and Aerodynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFinite element methodModel validationComputer scienceEngineeringStructural engineeringData science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Assessment of synthetic turf performance has been undertaken using a variety of experimental methods but is limited in understanding the complex physics of cleat-turf interaction. Computational models could provide insight, but there is currently no validated model of synthetic turf available. The scope of this study was to develop a Finite Element (FE) model of synthetic turf using a hierarchical approach and validate the model using independent test data. A physical third-generation synthetic turf comprising slit-film fibers with sand and rubber crumb infill was constructed. Experiments were conducted using a direct impact (Clegg) device and an artificial cleat-form. Material characterization tests were performed on the individual turf components, integrated into constitutive models, and a full turf FE model was constructed. The carpet was modeled with shell elements while the granular infill was modeled using smoothed-particle hydrodynamics (SPH) elements. A method to simulate the physical pre-conditioning performed on the experimental turf was developed. Both unconditioned and pre-conditioned turfs were assessed using Clegg tests. The re-created Clegg tests on the turf model demonstrated good agreement with the physical tests, with higher acceleration for the pre-conditioned turf. The turf model was validated using experiments with a turf test apparatus including dynamic translation and rotation of a cleat-form. The model predicted results in good agreement with the experiments (average CORA rating of 0.863) on pre-conditioned turf. The resulting model and methods can be expanded to synthetic turf of different constituent materials, to investigate their effects on cleat-surface interaction, optimizing performance, and reducing injury risk.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.151
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.182
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part P Journal of Sports Engineering and TechnologySame topicComputational Fluid Dynamics and AerodynamicsFrench-language works237,207