MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140518749 · doi:10.2140/jomms.2006.1.1281

The shear response of metallic square honeycombs

2006· article· en· W2140518749 on OpenAlexfundno aff
François Côté, V.S. Deshpande, N.A. Fleck

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of mechanics of materials and structures · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCellular and Composite Structures
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOffice of Naval ResearchCambridge Commonwealth TrustFonds Québécois de la Recherche sur la Nature et les Technologies
KeywordsMaterials scienceSquare (algebra)Shear (geology)MetalStructural engineeringComposite materialMetallurgyEngineeringGeometryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Stainless steel square honeycombs have been manufactured by slotting together steel sheets and then brazing the assembly.Their out-of-plane shear response is measured as a function of the relative density of the honeycomb and of the direction of shearing with respect to the material axes of the square honeycomb.The response is nearly isotropic with the shear strength and reasonably insensitive to the loading direction.In contrast to the out-of-plane compressive response, the shear response is monotonically hardening and the shear strength scales linearly with relative density.A simple analytical model based upon uniform deformation of the cell walls is in good agreement with the measured shear behavior at low shear strains, and predicts the onset of wrinkling of the cell walls to reasonable accuracy.Finite element (FE) calculations are accurate up to large values of shear strain, and reveal that the shear strength of the square honeycombs is relatively insensitive to the ratio of honeycomb height to cell size.The shear strength of square honeycombs compares favorably with other competing sandwich core topologies such as pyramidal and corrugated truss cores.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.187 · 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
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

Citations43
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of mechanics of materials and structuresSame topicCellular and Composite StructuresFrench-language works237,207