MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045287967 · doi:10.2514/1.c032159

Stress Intensity Factor Solution for Cracks in Panels with Arbitrarily Located Stringers

2013· article· en· W2045287967 on OpenAlexafffund
Yan Bombardier, Min Liao, Guillaume Renaud

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aircraft · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Behavior of Composites
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
FundersNational Research Council CanadaDefence Research and Development Canada
KeywordsStringerStructural engineeringStress intensity factorFinite element methodEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionStress (linguistics)Quasistatic processEngineeringMaterials sciencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a stress intensity factor solution for cracks located in panels reinforced with arbitrarily located stringers. The new solution was developed by modifying the constitutive equations of a solution for symmetrically and periodically spaced stringers with riveted rigid fasteners. The new solution supports arbitrary stringer locations with respect to the crack location, includes the capability to model compliant fasteners, improves the accuracy of the equivalent stringer compliance by considering Poisson’s effect, and allows the fasteners to be arbitrarily located within each stringer. For the tested cases, the difference between the stress intensity factors calculated using the new closed-form solution and the linear static finite-element analysis results were within 4%. Through two examples for the CC-130 aircraft, it was shown that the closed-form solution developed for a center crack in an infinite sheet could also be used to model an edge crack growing in a relatively large panel.

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AircraftSame topicMechanical Behavior of CompositesFrench-language works237,207