MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065236560 · doi:10.1177/0021998304045591

Effect of a Soft Interleaf on Transverse Cracks in Thick Glass Fiber–Epoxy Cross-ply Laminates

2004· article· en· W2065236560 on OpenAlexafffund
Garret Meijer, Fernand Ellyin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Composite Materials · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Behavior of Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialStiffnessDelamination (geology)Transverse planeStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An interleaf has an effect on delamination, fracture and fatigue crack growth, and impact damage. Here, it is shown that a soft interleaf placed between plies of similar orientation will delay transverse cracks and extend laminate fatigue life. Fatigue test results on symmetric cross-ply laminate coupon specimens with a thick 90 -layer show that the interleaf did stall the rapid crack growth for a significant period before proceeding to the interior of the specimen. It was observed that the crack path was not straight but tended to translate along the interleaf–90 ply interface for some distance. A numerical analysis was used to study the effects of interleaf stiffness, thickness, and position. For a soft interleaf the crack energy release rate increases rapidly as the crack approaches the interleaf but then drops to a minimum value well below that of the laminate without interleaf when the crack tip is in and just past the interleaf. An increase in the soft interleaf thickness only slightly decreased this minimum value. The minimum energy release rate is shown to decrease as the interleaf is placed closer to the original crack tip near the outside surface of the laminate.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Composite MaterialsSame topicMechanical Behavior of CompositesFrench-language works237,207