Bearing Behavior of Mechanically Fastened Joints in Composite Laminates--Part II: Failure Mechanisms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The bearing response and failure mechanisms of mechanically fastened carbon/epoxy laminated composite joints were investigated. Some results of the experimental study on strength and local strains were presented in Part I. The investigation on failure mechanisms is summarized in this paper. The major focus of the second part of the experiments was to determine the effect of the stacking sequence and the influence of clamping pressure exerted by a bolt on the bearing failure mechanisms. External damage was examined on a macroscopic scale and internal damage was evaluated using optical microscopy. To evaluate the extent of internal damage, polished cross-sections of the specimens were taken from a bearing plane and from a shear plane tangent to the hole boundary. Fiber orientation has an influence on the location around the hole circumference where failure initiates. Micrographs of the cross-ply and quasi-isotropic laminate specimens showed the importance of the 0° ply behavior. Intensive shear delamination appeared between the 0° ply and the adjacent inner ply. The pattern of bearing damage under the washers is similar for different clamping methods, but the ability of the joint to sustain damage increases with the level of clamping pressure.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".