Experimental investigation of multi-material aluminum-to-steel and glass fiber reinforced polymer-to-steel bonded and bolted–bonded connections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through an experimental study, this paper describes the behavior of single-lap bonded and bolted–bonded connections for configurations with minimum geometric parameters proposed in design references. Two types of multi-material connections are considered: glass fiber reinforced polymer (GFRP)–steel and aluminum–steel. At first, the behavior of bonded connections using methacrylate and epoxy adhesives is evaluated. Then, the contribution of adhesive in bolted connections is investigated. Test results show that on bonded joints, failures mostly occur at the substrate to adhesive interface. Sanding the GFRP plate was found to improve the connection strength. Despite their lower elastic modulus, methacrylate adhesives with larger capacity to undergo plastic deformation provide better strength than other methacrylate and epoxy adhesives. For bolted–bonded joints, the adhesive was found to improve the elastic behavior and the strength of GFRP–steel joints while its effect for aluminum–steel joints was not apparent due to reduced bonded surface and the high strength performance of the bolted plates.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".