In-Plane Bending and Failure Mechanism of Sandwich Beams with GFRP Skins and Soft Polyurethane Foam Core
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The out-of-plane bending of sandwich panels has been widely investigated, but studies on their behavior under in-plane loading are quite scarce. In this study, 18 sandwich beam specimens were tested under three- and four-point in-plane-bending. The specimens are composed of low-density polyurethane core and glass fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) skins on both sides. The shear span-to-depth (a/h) ratio was varied from 1.33 to 4.67. Two different skin thicknesses were also used, providing beam depth-to-skin thickness (h/t) ratios of 47 and 94. It was found that the ultimate moment reduced by approximately one third as the a/h ratio increased from 1.33 to 4.67 in sandwich beams with an h/t ratio of 94 and decreased by about one quarter in beams with an h/t ratio of 47. Doubling the skin thickness [i.e., from h/t of 94–47] increased the moment capacity significantly. The percentage increase ranged from 55 to 95% as a/h increased from 1.33 to 4.67. Failure of sandwich beams occurred by skin wrinkling in compression, mostly symmetrically, where skins move in opposite directions. A simplified analytical model accounting for shear and flexural rigidities of the sandwich beam and a skin wrinkling failure criterion in compression was developed and validated against experimental results.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".