Stretch-and-release fabrication, testing and optimization of a flexible ceramic armor inspired from fish scales
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protective systems that are simultaneously hard to puncture and compliant in flexion are desirable, but difficult to achieve because hard materials are usually stiff. However, we can overcome this conflicting design requirement by combining plates of a hard material with a softer substrate, and a strategy which is widely found in natural armors such as fish scales or osteoderms. Man-made segmented armors have a long history, but their systematic implementation in a modern and a protective system is still hampered by a limited understanding of the mechanics and the design of optimization guidelines, and by challenges in cost-efficient manufacturing. This study addresses these limitations with a flexible bioinspired armor based on overlapping ceramic scales. The fabrication combines laser engraving and a stretch-and-release method which allows for fine tuning of the size and overlap of the scales, and which is suitable for large scale fabrication. Compared to a continuous layer of uniform ceramic, our fish-scale like armor is not only more flexible, but it is also more resistant to puncture and more damage tolerant. The proposed armor is also about ten times more puncture resistant than soft elastomers, making it a very attractive alternative to traditional protective equipment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".