MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143247224 · doi:10.5539/jmsr.v3n1p30

Dynamic Behavior of Laminated Graphite/Epoxy Composite under High-Strain Rate Perforation Loading

2013· article· en· W2143247224 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Qiaoyun Xie, Sylvanus N. Wosu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Materials Science Research · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicHigh-Velocity Impact and Material Behavior
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialPerforationEpoxySplit-Hopkinson pressure barStrain rateComposite numberGraphiteFracture mechanicsStrain energy release rateFracture (geology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A high strain rate perforation split Hopkinson pressure bar (P-SHPB) test apparatus was developed for the quantification analysis of energy expenditure in the penetration or perforation mechanics, and dynamic fracture failure processes of laminated graphite/epoxy composite. This paper described the basic features of the P-SHPB system for perforation testing, characterized of high strain rate, and single mode as well as mixed modes of fracture failures of laminated composites. The results showed that the energy expended in a perforation process depends on the thickness of the laminate samples, the impact parameters and the incident stress delivered to the composite. The failure modes in graphite/epoxy composite exhibited four regions of damage mechanism and characterized on the basis of energy absorbed, impact energy, loading force, sample stress and strain rate. Perforation limit velocity was estimated by extrapolating the (impact velocity)2 and crack length curve to a zero-damage length and determining the velocity value.

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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.326 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Materials Science ResearchSame topicHigh-Velocity Impact and Material BehaviorFrench-language works237,207