MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015771992 · doi:10.1177/1045389x09351609

Finite Element Analysis of Broken Fiber Effects on Hollow Active Fiber Composites

2009· article· en· W2015771992 on OpenAlexaff
Marcias Martinez, Robert Kernaghan, A. Artemev

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAeroelasticity and Vibration Control
Canadian institutionsCarleton UniversityNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialFinite element methodFiberComposite numberEpoxyFiber-reinforced compositeElectrodeStructural engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The finite element method was used to study the performance of hollow active fiber composites (HAFC) and the effect of the fiber damage on this performance. The finite element model was developed for the simulation of the PZT-5H hollow fiber-epoxy matrix composite with single and dual electrode ‘bus’ systems. The simulations were performed for the actuation and sensing functions of the composites with healthy and broken fibers. The results of the healthy HAFC models were compared to the experimental data and numerical results found in the literature. The effect of broken fibers in the composite structure on both the actuation and sensing performance was studied. The results demonstrate that a gap in the fiber leads to actuation performance loss. The loss in the performance is directly related to the location of the fiber and its proximity to the electric potential source. The results also demonstrate that this loss could be minimized by applying a dual electrode system at both ends of the composite. In the sensing application utilizing HAFC, it was shown that these types of composites have several advantages over solid active fiber composites.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Intelligent Material Systems and StructuresSame topicAeroelasticity and Vibration ControlFrench-language works237,207