MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fiber Element Model of Sandwich Panels with Soft Cores and Composite Skins in Bending Considering Large Shear Deformations and Localized Skin Wrinkling

2016· article· en· W2284908848 on OpenAlexaff
Amir Fam, Tarek Sharaf, Pedram Sadeghian

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Engineering Mechanics · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComposite Structure Analysis and Optimization
Canadian institutionsDalhousie UniversityQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialDeflection (physics)Flexural strengthStructural engineeringShear (geology)Ultimate tensile strengthSandwich-structured compositeStiffnessComposite numberFibre-reinforced plasticSandwich panelEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper studies the flexural performance of sandwich panels composed of a soft polyurethane foam core and glass-fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) skins. A robust numerical model is developed to predict the full load-deflection and strain responses of the panel. It is based on equilibrium and strain compatibility and accounts for the excessive shear deformation and material nonlinearity of the core. It also accounts for geometric nonlinearity in the form of localized deflection of the loaded skin using the principals of beam-on-elastic foundation and the change in core thickness due to its softness. The model incorporates various failure criteria, namely core shear failure, core flexural tension or compression failure, compression skin crushing or wrinkling, or tensile rupture of skin. The model has the advantage of being able to isolate quantitatively the individual contributions of flexure, shear, and localized skin deformations, to overall deflection. A parametric study is performed to examine the effects of core density and skin thickness on panel behavior. It is shown that as the core density increases from 32 to 192 kg/m3, the contribution of shear to overall deflection reduces from about 90 to 10%. It also appears that the optimal core density of the sandwich panels is within 96 to 128 kg/m3, which represents the lowest density necessary to achieve the highest ultimate strength and stiffness.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.189
Teacher spread0.183 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations21
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Engineering MechanicsSame topicComposite Structure Analysis and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207