MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2315270790 · doi:10.2514/6.2013-1876

Crack Arrestment of Bonded Composite Joints

2013· article· en· W2315270790 on OpenAlexaff
Jason Action, Stephen P. Engelstad

Bibliographic record

Venue54th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Behavior of Composites
Canadian institutionsLockheed Martin (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComposite numberMaterials scienceStructural engineeringComposite materialForensic engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes current results of an ongoing program to develop a test verified analysis method for crack arrestment of bonded structures. Bonded specimens have been tested with and without fasteners, which to-date include a bonded double cantilever beam (DCB) (Mode I), double shear (Mode II), and a DCB-like pi-joint (Mode I) specimen. Finite element models utilizing the Virtual Crack Closure Technique (VCCT) for crack progression have been constructed and correlated to the tests, utilizing fracture toughness data measured using all zero and bonded layup fracture toughness tests. Utilizing the VCCT capability within ABAQUS, fasteners have been shown to arrest a crack growing in the DCB and double shear specimens, as well as cracks in the DCB pi-joint specimen. Tests of the DCB and Double Shear specimens verified these results, but further investigations are needed to resolve fastener pre-load force and crack face friction effects, especially for the Double Shear. Promising comparisons were achieved between the pi-joint DCB model and test data. This project is ongoing, and additional pi-joint Mode I and Mode II specimens are planned for future evaluations.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations8
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue54th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials ConferenceSame topicMechanical Behavior of CompositesFrench-language works237,207