Fracture Mechanics Analyses of Reinforced Carbon-Carbon Wing-Leading-Edge Panels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fracture mechanics analyses of subsurface defects within the joggle regions of the Space Shuttle wing-leading-edge RCC panels are performed. A 2D plane strain idealized joggle finite element model is developed to study the fracture behavior of the panels for three distinct loading conditions - lift-off and ascent, on-orbit, and entry. For lift-off and ascent, an estimated bounding aerodynamic pressure load is used for the analyses, while for on-orbit and entry, thermo-mechanical analyses are performed using the extreme cold and hot temperatures experienced by the panels. In addition, a best estimate for the material stress-free temperature is used in the thermo-mechanical analyses. In the finite element models, the substrate and coating are modeled separately as two distinct materials. Subsurface defects are introduced at the coating-substrate interface and within the substrate. The objective of the fracture mechanics analyses is to evaluate the defect driving forces, which are characterized by the strain energy release rates, and determine if defects can become unstable for each of the loading conditions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".