MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2023583232 · doi:10.1177/0731684412445494

Numerical modelling of sandwich panels with soft core and different rib configurations

2012· article· en· W2023583232 on OpenAlexaff
Tarek Sharaf, Amir Fam

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Reinforced Plastics and Composites · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCellular and Composite Structures
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialFlexural strengthFinite element methodRib cageSandwich-structured compositeDeformation (meteorology)Shear (geology)Sandwich panelCore (optical fiber)Compression (physics)Glass fiberStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents numerical modeling of the flexural behaviour of sandwich panels composed of [0/90] woven glass fibre reinforced polymer skins and polyurethane foam core, including various patterns of glass fibre reinforced polymer ribs, as well as cores of different densities. A robust finite element model has been developed. It accounts for material nonlinearities; most pronounced in soft cores and [0/90] glass fibre reinforced polymer ribs in shear, as well as geometric nonlinearities arising in panels without ribs, in the form of a reduction in panel thickness and excessive shear deformation. The model captures both material failures and stability failure, essentially skin wrinkling in compression. The model is successfully validated using a large experimental database and predicts well full flexural responses. It is shown that ribs allow compression skin to reach its full material strength. Panels without ribs fail by skin wrinkling under concentrated loads, while those under distributed loads fail either by excessive shear deformation or diagonal fracture of the core, depending on core density. Failure of glass fibre reinforced polymer tension skin never occurred in this study. For panels without ribs, the three-dimensional finite element model agrees closely with a simplified two-dimensional model. A parametric study addressing longitudinal rib spacing showed that flexural strength increases as rib spacing reduces, until it stabilizes at a rib spacing-to-panel thickness ratio of 2.93.

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)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Citations30
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Reinforced Plastics and CompositesSame topicCellular and Composite StructuresFrench-language works237,207