MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2165325161 · doi:10.1002/pc.10205

The need to re‐evaluate laminate design criteria

2000· article· en· W2165325161 on OpenAlexafffund
M. R. Piggott

Bibliographic record

VenuePolymer Composites · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Behavior of Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsStiffnessAerospaceEpoxyMaterials scienceEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionPayload (computing)Composite materialStructural engineeringWork (physics)SofteningComputer scienceMechanical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The aerospace industry uses carbon‐fiber epoxy laminates for structures to reduce weight and increase payload. The “standard” design criterion for strength is that proposed by Tsai‐Wu. For stiffness, which is generally more critical than strength, classical laminated plate theory (LPT) is used. The normal lay‐ups considered for commercial aircraft are made up from 0°, 90° and ± 45° orientations. Angle ply laminates, [± ϕ] ns , with ϕ fixed to some angle such as 20°, are not normally used (although this type of structure is employed with great success in the pressure vessel industry). According to the Tsai‐Wu criterion, such a structure should be extremely weak, which probably accounts for the absence of simple angle ply structures in aerospace designs. However if short and wide samples (aspect. ratio 0.5 or less) are tested, higher values are obtained for modulus and much higher values for strength than the long narrow samples used to develop the Tsai‐Wu criterion. The short and wide sample test results are in agreement with results from tests on tubes. These observations show that there is an “edge softening” effect: long narrow samples have a relatively large amount of this soft edge. Since design software normally uses Tsai‐Wu and LPT, large errors in strength and significant errors in stiffness are possible at this stage, and better lay‐up designs may be totally missed. The experimental work leading to these conclusions is described and innovative designs are discussed.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.241 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations3
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolymer CompositesSame topicMechanical Behavior of CompositesFrench-language works237,207