MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012563307 · doi:10.1177/073168402128987635

Mode-II Fracture at the Interface between a Base and a Repair Graphite/Epoxy Laminates

2002· article· en· W2012563307 on OpenAlexaff
M.A. Jarrah, Montasser S. Tahat, Suong V. Hoa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Behavior of Composites
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNational Center for Theoretical Sciences
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialEpoxyFracture toughnessCuring (chemistry)GraphiteAutoclaveComposite laminatesComposite number

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Experimental investigation of the characteristics of the interface between a base laminate [0 8 ] T and a repair laminate [0 8 ] T was carried out through Mode II fracture tests, compliance calibration tests, and microscopic observations. The material used for manufacturing the test samples is unidirectional carbon fiber prepreg (Newport Composites NCT-301 graphite/epoxy). The laminate lay-up used in all experiments was [0 16 ] T .The specimens were subjected to variations in the autoclave pressure in the repair curing cycle. A standard sample (reference) was subjected to the manufacture recommended cure cycle. The repair samples were subjected to the manufacturer recommended curing cycle (for temperature) with different values for pressure. Results show a significant effect of pressure. However, the effect of the magnitude of the pressure is not significant after some threshold values. More than 28% drop in the fracture toughness is experienced by the lack of bonding between the older previously cured matrix and the newly added composite laminate. There is some difference between the Mode-II test and compliance calibration test, but no preference, in terms of accuracy, can be given to what method to be used to obtain Mode II fracture toughness.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.541
Threshold uncertainty score0.567

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.208 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Reinforced Plastics and CompositesSame topicMechanical Behavior of CompositesFrench-language works237,207