MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2080675835 · doi:10.1520/mpc20130034

Internal Notched Flexure (INF) Test for Measurement of Mode II Interlaminar Fracture Toughness of Fiber Composites

2014· article· en· W2080675835 on OpenAlexaff
Tsegay Belay, P.‐Y. Ben Jar, Jianwei Cheng

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials Performance and Characterization · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Behavior of Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceFracture toughnessComposite materialStiffnessDelamination (geology)Fracture (geology)Shear (geology)Finite element methodToughnessFiberStructural engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A revised analysis to derive the expression for the mode II interlaminar fracture toughness of fiber-reinforced polymers from internal notched flexure (INF) testing in small deformation is presented here. The approach adopted for the derivation takes into account the interlaminar shear load in the overhanging section outside the span. This improves the prediction accuracy for the initial specimen compliance, as evident from a finite element (FE) model of the INF specimen. The FE model also suggests that extensive damage develops at the crack tip before the delamination growth. Therefore, rather than using the physical crack length to calculate the interlaminar fracture toughness, one should use the effective crack length, which can be determined based on the measured specimen stiffness from experimental testing. With that, the analytical expression yields an inerlaminar fracture toughness that is consistent with the input value for the cohesive elements of the FE model.

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)0.001
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.202 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterials Performance and CharacterizationSame topicMechanical Behavior of CompositesFrench-language works237,207