MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2301852521 · doi:10.2495/dm020171

The University of British Columbia Bonded Composite Repair Program: Research steps towards certification

2002· article· en· W2301852521 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
D.P. Romilly, R.J. Clark, A.M. Albat

Bibliographic record

VenueWIT transactions on engineering sciences · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFatigue and fracture mechanics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAirframeDurabilityCertificationDamage toleranceWork (physics)Residual stressEngineeringComposite numberStructural engineeringConstruction engineeringForensic engineeringMaterials scienceMechanical engineeringComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the need to utilize aircraft beyond their previous design life, industry has increasingly employed damage tolerant methods coupled with engineered inspection and maintenance programs based on risk analysis to manage the life of aging airframes, In support of this change in strategy has been the development of improved inspection and maintenance techniques. Bonded composite repairs offer the potential to stop or slow crack growth in metal aircraft structures. The benefits of a bonded repair over a riveted repair are significant and include improvements in fatigue life, inspectability, and cost. Offsetting these are the problems of performing a damage tolerance analysis of a bonded repair, stringent surface treatment and material controls to achieve bond durability, environmental and loading rate sensitivity of structural adhesives, and possible high thermal residual stresses, The objective of the Bonded Composite Repair Program at the University of British Columbia (UBC-BCRP) is to move this technology towards certification and widespread use by addressing and overcoming these barriers. The research work has developed techniques for evaluation of thermal residual stresses, stresses in the reinforced and patched structure, and stresses in a disbanding repair, This paper highlights some of the experimental and analytical results of this work to date and discusses its significance. This paper also outlines some of the future goals of the program and the potential opportunities in the area of bonded composite repairs.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.290
Threshold uncertainty score0.576

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.003

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWIT transactions on engineering sciencesSame topicFatigue and fracture mechanicsFrench-language works237,207