Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predicting the energy absorption of composite structures requires a constitutive model that is capable of representing post-peak softening and irreversible strains, i.e., a coupled damage-plasticity model. The development of such models requires a general damage-plasticity framework. This article examines the merits and limitations of the continuum damage mechanics (CDM) framework and the plasticity framework. Based on the physical evidence of damage accumulation process in composites and the fundamentals of the two theories, a simple coupling method was proposed. This method employs a perfect plastic flow rule within a CDM framework. The capability of this method was examined by incorporating plasticity into the Matzenmiller-Lubliner-Taylor (MLT) model, a classic CDM model for composites. The coupled MLT-plasticity model was implemented as a user defined material law in explicit finite element code LS-DYNA ® , and subsequently numerical tests were conducted. It was demonstrated that the proposed method can extend an existing composite CDM model into a coupled damage-plasticity model seamlessly with only a few extra parameters, while retaining its computational efficiency. The capability of the coupled CDM-plasticity model in energy absorption prediction was validated in axial impact simulations of a composite tube reinforced with 1-ply carbon fiber tri-axial braid.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".