Interlaminar Stress and Delamination Analysis of Internally-Tapered Composite Laminates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the present work, the interlaminar fracture behavior of internally-tapered composite laminates that have cracks in the drop-off region is investigated using J-integral and direct calculation methods. The influences of cracks at the resin layer–interleaf interface and at the interface between adjacent plies are studied. The composite laminate is modeled and analyzed using partial hybrid stress finite elements that are formulated based on the Hellinger–Reissner variational principle and the generalized plane deformation theory. In the formulation, only three interlaminar stress components that cause delamination at the interface are independently assumed in addition to displacement interpolation. Both the six-node triangular and eight-node quadrilateral hybrid finite elements (formulated and presented in a companion paper [He, K., Hoa, S.V. and Ganesan, R. “Stress Analysis of Tapered Composite Laminate Using Partial Hybrid Finite Elements”, J. Reinforced Plastics and Composities, 23:6, 2004.]) are used in the fracture analysis. A parametric study is conducted to determine the influences of geometric and material properties on the fracture behavior of the tapered laminate. Experimental work was carried out for the observation of fracture. The analysis results and the experimental observation are compared.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".