Parametric Study of Three-Stringer Panel Compression-After-lmpact Strength
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Damage tolerance requirements for integrally stiffened composite wing skins are typically met using design allowables generated by testing impact-damaged subcomponents, such as three-stringer stiffened panels. To improve these structures, it is necessary to evaluate the critical design parameters associated with three-stringer stiffened-panel compressive behavior. During recent research and development programs, four structural parameters were identified as sources for strength variation: (a) material system, (b) stringer configuration, (c) skin layup, and (d) form of axial reinforcement (tape versus pultruded carbon rods). The relative effects of these parameters on damage resistance and damage tolerance were evaluated numerically and experimentally. Material system and geometric configuration had the largest influence on damage resistance; location and extent of the damage zone influenced the sublaminate buckling behavior, failure initiation site, and compressive ultimate strength. A practical global-local modeling technique captured observed experimental behavior and has the potential to identify critical damage sites and estimate failure loads prior to testing. More careful consideration should be given to accurate simulation of boundary conditions in numerical and experimental studies.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".