MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329288902 · doi:10.1177/0021998315590261

Effect of stamp-forming parameters and bend radius on the mechanical performance of curved beam carbon fiber/polyphenylene sulfide specimens

2015· article· en· W2329288902 on OpenAlexaff
Thibault Jamin, Martine Dubé, Louis Laberge Lebel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Composite Materials · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Behavior of Composites
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialBend radiusBendingBeam (structure)Ultimate tensile strengthSulfideRADIUSFinite element methodFiberCarbon fibersThermoplasticStructural engineeringComposite numberMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The stamp-forming process is used to manufacture S-shape parts made of carbon fiber/polyphenylene sulfide thermoplastic composites. The processing parameters and part layup, thickness, and bend radius are varied in order to investigate their effects on the parts’ quality and mechanical performance. The interlaminar tensile strength of the formed parts is measured using the results of curved beam four-point bending tests and recommended analytical equations. A nonlinear finite element model of the tested coupons is developed, taking into account the contact between the loading bars and the coupon as well as the plies’ interface properties. The results of the model are used to verify the precision of the analytical equations for various bend radii and part layup and thickness. Conclusions as to the optimum set of processing parameters that should be used for the stamp forming of carbon fiber/polyphenylene sulfide are drawn.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.667

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Composite MaterialsSame topicMechanical Behavior of CompositesFrench-language works237,207