MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2335744413 · doi:10.2514/6.2016-0985

Probabilistic First Ply Failure Analysis of Wind Turbine Blade Laminates

2016· article· en· W2335744413 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

Venue57th AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Behavior of Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBlade (archaeology)Turbine bladeProbabilistic logicStructural engineeringTurbineComputer scienceMaterials scienceEngineeringMechanical engineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work presents an integrated methodology for probabilistic analysis of first ply failure (FPF) of composite materials used in wind turbine blades using a multi-scale approach, M-SaF (Micromechanics based failure Analysis under Static loading) and Bayesian statistical framework. The M-SaF approach was developed to predict failure in heterogeneous materials by analyzing each constituent failure at the micro level, i.e. the fiber, the matrix and the interface. M-SaF is composed of three sub models to account for the stresses in the constituents, namely: the Stassi Equivalent stress model for the matrix; fiber breakage based on Tsai-Wu failure criterion . The analysis is carried out on a three dimensional representative unit cell of the composite. Use of M-SaF in practise requires the constituent’s properties (fiber, matrix, and interface) which are difficult to fully characterize and can have significant statistical variation. A Bayesian framework was therefore developed to afford probabilistic failure estimates tuned to available test coupon data. An academic problem of a cantilever beam was used to demonstrate the parameter calibration procedure. Lamina level test data are then used to calibrate the constituent’s properties within the Bayesian framework, computing posterior probability distributions of fiber and matrix properties. The posterior distributions were then used to predict probabilistic FPF of a range of composite laminates layups for OptiDaT and WWFE test data base values.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.697
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.198 · 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