MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088277060 · doi:10.2514/1.c031164

Elastic Deformation Analysis of Adhesively Bonded Composite Butt Joints in Tension

2011· article· en· W2088277060 on OpenAlexaff
Gang Li, Andrew Johnston, Marko Yanishevsky, Nicholas C. Bellinger

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Aircraft · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Behavior of Composites
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructural engineeringButt jointFinite element methodMaterials scienceComposite numberJoint (building)AdhesiveMechanical jointDeflection (physics)Composite materialTension (geology)Deformation (meteorology)Ultimate tensile strengthEngineeringPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An elastic deformation analysis of bonded composite butt joints in tension was carried out. Theoretical expressions of the effective Young’s modulus and bending stiffness for laminated composite beam panels were derived under both plane-strain and plane-stress conditions. Secondary bending deformation for bonded composite butt joints was analyzed theoretically. Joint elongation was estimated using a theoretical expression presented herein. An approach was proposed to eliminate the strain discontinuity at the joint overlap end, an artifact of inappropriate use of the Euler–Bernoulli beam theory. Expressions for the four coefficients arising from the coupled adhesive stress differential equations used were provided, and two strategies were proposed to explore the complete closed-form adhesive stress solutions in a general composite butt joint configuration. Two butt joint cases are presented. The case 1 joint was fabricated using identical laminated composite panels for both the adherends and the doubler, while the thickness of the doubler of the case 2 joint was 50% thicker. Three-dimensional finite element models were created for analysis of the unit-width joints under a plane-strain condition. Good agreement for the predicted joint deformation (deflection, elongation, and strain) was achieved between the three methods. Finite element results showed that high peak adhesive stresses were developed at the inner overlap edge area, and they suggested that appropriate reinforcement should be made in this region to ensure structural integrity.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.680
Threshold uncertainty score0.383

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations14
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of AircraftSame topicMechanical Behavior of CompositesFrench-language works237,207