Fractography of compression failed carbon fiber reinforced plastic composite laminates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Widespread usage of composites in the advanced technologies, has led to the study of the failure modes by which these composites fail, as identification and hence the interpretation of these characteristic fracture features is necessary to provide valuable information in understanding of the failure behavior of composites. Hence, in this paper, our effort has been in the study of the fractographic features in the carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP) composite laminates under compression loading. Microscopic study with the aid of scanning electron microscope (SEM) has been performed on failed composite fracture surfaces to identify the principal features due to compression loading. This research has led to the knowledge of the nature and origin of fracture, as well as understanding of how the fracture occurs, with an insight into the various characteristic features and its effect of these on the failure modes with the definition of overall crack propagation direction in case of compression loaded CFRP laminates. Also, a model explaining the damage zone leading to kink band formation has been discussed. Key words: CFRP, compression loading, fractography, SEM, damage zone model, kinking.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".