MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051759783 · doi:10.1115/imece2005-79213

The Effects of Hole Size and Eccentricity on the Reliability of Notched Laminates

2005· article· en· W2051759783 on OpenAlexaff
Rajamohan Ganesan, Md Ibrahim

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComposite laminatesMaterials scienceEccentricity (behavior)Offset (computer science)Discontinuity (linguistics)BrittlenessStructural engineeringStress (linguistics)Reliability (semiconductor)Stress concentrationFirst-order reliability methodComposite numberAnisotropyComposite materialRandom variableComputer scienceEngineeringMathematicsFracture mechanicsPhysicsMathematical analysisStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most of the practical engineering structures contain holes and cutouts of different sizes designed as parts of basic design, as in joints and assemblies, and for maintenance purposes. It is well known that holes and cutouts cause serious problems of stress concentrations due to the geometry discontinuity. These problems are even more serious in structures made of composite materials since the materials exhibit anisotropic behavior, and the structures are more sensitive to stress concentrations due to their brittle behavior. Because of its importance, engineers want to determine the effects of stress concentration, predict the failure and strength, and develop methods to reduce these effects. The stress distribution in the notched composite laminate is very sensitive to the size of the hole and the eccentricity of the hole from its desired location. In practice, many times during manufacturing the drilled hole is slightly offset from the desired location, and further there is variability in the size of the hole. These variations have a random distribution over the ensemble of laminates. In addition, composite materials display significant variability in their mechanical properties. As a result of the above-mentioned variabilities, the stress distribution in the laminate becomes stochastic in nature. In this circumstance, it becomes appropriate that the analysis of the notched laminates be carried out based on a stochastic approach and that the design is performed based on reliability requirement.

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.176
Teacher spread0.173 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207