Bearing Behavior of Mechanically Fastened Joints in Composite Laminates--Part I: Strength and Local Strains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The bearing response and failure mechanisms of mechanically fastened carbon/epoxy laminated composite joints were investigated. The results of this experimental study will be presented in two papers. In this first paper, results on bearing strength and local strains are reported. In the second paper, failure mechanisms will be described. The major focus of the experiments was to determine the effect of the stacking sequence and the influence of clamping pressure exerted by a bolt on the bearing failure. Compared with other research work done in this field, the novelty in this project is that local strains around the hole were recorded and that the effective bolt displacement was measured instead of the head displacement of the testing machine. Moreover, the effective clamping pressure was evaluated with a sensor film. A significant increase in the maximum bearing strength was observed when comparing results from specimens tested with a dowel pin and results from specimens tested with a finger-tightened bolt or with a torque-tightened bolt. For the three lay-ups tested, the clamping pressure delays the specimen delamination and enhances the post-peak behavior. The stress and strain fields around the hole depend on the laminate. Fibers oriented at 45° improve the bearing behavior.
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".