Stacking Sequence Effect of Multi–angle Filament Wound Tubular Composite Structures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pressure–retaining tubular structures made from polymer fibre reinforced composites are commonly wound with uniform winding angles. Modern production equipment allows for the fabrication of multi–angle layup configurations. Performance improvements of multi–angle layups in comparison to those with uniform winding angles have been reported for structures that are operated under variable biaxial stress states. Designing components with multi–angle layups is a complex task, as the proper winding angles as well as stacking sequence need to be determined. In this study, the influence of the stacking sequence on the strength of multi–angle filament wound tubes was investigated experimentally. Applying axial force and internal pressure, tubes of a certain layup and tubes with the inverted stacking sequence were subjected to different biaxial stress states. Stresses/strains at failure and failure modes were compared. Certain combinations of stacking sequence and biaxial stress state were found to result in increased strength. To confirm experimental findings, an analytical investigation is included in this study.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".