Cyclic Damage Evolution in a PMC Laminate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using damage mechanics, cyclic damage evolution has been described and evaluated in a non-crimped glass epoxy fabric composite. A fundamental fatigue study has been carried out by progressively monitoring the fatigue damage modulus and crack density throughout the life of an [0,+45,90,-45]2 (antisymmetric) laminate cycled at a stress ratio R (minimum stress/maximum stress) of 0.1. Development of damage can be separated into two main stages. Initially, damage increases very quickly during the first 10% of life (Stage I). Afterwhich, it increases more slowly at a relatively constant rate to failure (Stage II). The changes in the fatigue modulus and crack density both show the same behaviour. A large amount of damage in the form of transverse matrix cracks develops during the first cycle. These then remain constant throughout life. By contrast, the number of shear matrix cracks increase continually. The crack density is cycle, not stress dependent. This behaviour is reflected by changes in the fatigue modulus. Using damage mechanics, a representative equation has been applied to express the progressive evolution of damage. The significance of which is that the amount of fatigue damage at the end of Stage I for any stress level can be used to predict fatigue life and the stress-life diagram for the laminate.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".