Impact behavior and finite element prediction of the compression after impact strength of foam/vinylester-glass composite sandwiches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the impact and compression after impact behavior of PVC foam cored /E-glass reinforced/vinylester sandwiches used in a four-seat amphibian aircraft. The impact damage was sorted in three categories: barely visible impact damage; visible impact damage; and clearly visible impact damage. It was observed that when increasing impact energy, the extension of the damage from barely visible impact damage to visible impact damage corresponds to a significantly high rate of energy absorption as depicted by the absorbed energy/impact energy ratio. Sandwich coupons were modeled with the finite element analysis ANSYS software to predict the critical failure load in presence of damage zones equivalent to those observed experimentally. The finite element model predicts consistently the compression after impact strength of undamaged coupons and this result confirms the model used to represent the woven fabric by an equivalent cross-ply laminate model. However, the finite element overestimates the compression after impact strength of impacted ones. It is suggested that the induced out-of-plane displacements generate stress concentrations in the tip of cracks located at the borders of the damaged zone.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".