MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414953969 · doi:10.1115/pvp2025-154412

A New Continuous Decay/Stribeck Friction Model

2025· article· en· W4414953969 on OpenAlexaff
Abdallah Hadji, Njuki Mureithi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAdhesion, Friction, and Surface Interactions
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoulomb frictionDiscontinuity (linguistics)Finite element methodDynamical frictionDry frictionIdentification (biology)Static frictionCoulomb

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The friction model is a crucial element in the detailed analysis of the dynamics of mechanical systems across various industries. Currently, the Coulomb friction model is commonly employed to simulate tube-support interactions in steam generators within the nuclear industry. However, this model is very basic and cannot capture all aspects of friction behavior, particularly the transition from static friction to dynamic friction. In previous work, the parameters for different friction models were identified and validated using FEM (Finite Element Method). Several issues were identified, such as the discontinuity in the Stribeck or decay friction models. In this paper, we analyze this discontinuity and propose improvements by introducing a new ’ Continuous Decay/Stribeck Friction Model’ model. The identification of model parameters, their sensitivity, and their effects on the frictional behavior and dynamic response of the system are also discussed. Additionally, the limitations of this model are addressed. The experimental results presented in the works of Baumberger et al. are used for model testing and validation. Using the experimental data, the parameter identification for the Stribeck and decay friction models, as well as the new proposed friction model is done.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.867
Threshold uncertainty score0.421

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAdhesion, Friction, and Surface InteractionsFrench-language works237,207