Sandwich Beams With Corrugated and Y-frame Cores: Does the Back Face Contribute to the Bending Response?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Stainless steel sandwich beams with a corrugated core or a Y-frame core have been tested in three-point bending and the role of the face-sheets has been assessed by considering beams with (i) front-and-back faces present, and (ii) front face present but back face absent. A fair comparison between competing beam designs is made on an equal mass basis by doubling the front face thickness when the back face is absent. The quasi-static, three-point bending responses were measured under simply supported and clamped boundary conditions. For both end conditions and for both types of core, the sandwich beams containing front-and-back faces underwent indentation beneath the mid-span roller whereas Brazier plastic buckling was responsible for the collapse of sandwich beams absent the back face. Three-dimensional finite element (FE) predictions were in good agreement with the measured responses and gave additional insight into the deformation modes. The FE method was also used to study the effect of (i) mass distribution between core and face-sheets and (ii) beam span upon the collapse response of a simply supported sandwich panel. Sandwich panels of short span are plastically indented by the mid-span roller and the panels absent a back face are stronger than those with front-and-back faces present. In contrast, sandwich panels of long span undergo Brazier plastic buckling, and the presence of a back face strengthens the panel.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".