MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402526588 · doi:10.3390/ma17184490

Impact of Regular and Irregular Pore Distributions on the Elasticity of Porous Materials: A Microstructure-Free Finite Element Study

2024· article· en· W4402526588 on OpenAlexafffund
Prajjayini Chakma, Yunhua Luo

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComposite Material Mechanics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlliance de recherche numérique du CanadaUniversity of Manitoba
KeywordsMicrostructureMaterials scienceFinite element methodPorosityElasticity (physics)Composite materialPorous mediumStructural engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conventional analytical formulas for predicting the effective Young's modulus of porous materials often rely on simplifying assumptions and do not explicitly incorporate microstructural information. This study investigates the impact of regular versus irregular pore distributions on the stiffness of porous materials using microstructure-free finite element modeling (MF-FEM). After conducting a convergence study, MF-FEM predictions were validated against experimental data and used to assess the accuracy of commonly employed analytical models. The results demonstrate that materials with irregular microstructures exhibit a rapid decrease in Young's modulus, approaching zero at porosities slightly greater than 50%. In contrast, regular microstructures show a more gradual decline, maintaining significant stiffness until the porosity exceeds 90%. Additionally, the study reveals that some analytical formulas align better with irregular microstructures while others are more suited to regular ones, attributable to the underlying assumptions of these models. These findings underscore the necessity of considering pore distribution patterns in modeling to accurately predict the mechanical behavior of porous materials.

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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.692

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterialsSame topicComposite Material MechanicsFrench-language works237,207