MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124626648 · doi:10.1106/u5bp-1rak-kj1a-qw3f

Effects of Friction on Three-Dimensional Contact Stresses in Pin-Loaded Laminated Composites

2000· article· en· W2124626648 on OpenAlexaff
Chao Zhang, Rajamohan Ganesan, Suong V. Hoa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Composite Materials · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Behavior of Composites
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialCoulomb frictionComposite numberTraction (geology)Stress (linguistics)Enhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionBoundary value problemComposite laminatesDisplacement (psychology)Nonlinear system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An investigation is performed to study the effects of friction on the three-dimensional (3D) stress state around pin-loaded holes in laminated composites. The composite pinned joints are modeled as a linear elastic contact problem with friction; therefore, the interactions between the pin with the laminate follow the law of Coulomb friction. An analytical solution for the 3D stress state involved in this problem is developed based upon the variational principle of complementary energy. Compared to the previous research based on a two-dimensional stress assumption, the present solution is innovative, since the out-of-plane effects (i.e., edge effects) near the pin-loaded holes are considered. The present formulations are restricted to the laminated composites with bi-directional fiber orientations, because all the traction and displacement boundary conditions can be satisfied in such type of laminates. Numerical results for pin-loaded cross-ply laminates with different coefficients of friction are presented. It is shown that the effects of friction on the magnitude and distribution of the 3D stress state around pin-loaded holes in laminated composites are significant.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.904

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations5
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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