MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606422401 · doi:10.1177/0021998317704708

Probabilistic first ply failure prediction of composite laminates using a multi-scale M-SaF and Bayesian inference approach

2017· article· en· W2606422401 on OpenAlexafffund
Ghulam Mustafa, Afzal Suleman, Curran Crawford

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Composite Materials · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Behavior of Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
FundersCanadian Network for Research and Innovation in Machining Technology, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComposite laminatesMaterials scienceMicromechanicsBayesian inferenceProbabilistic logicCantileverStructural engineeringComputer scienceBayesian probabilityAlgorithmComposite materialComposite numberEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a probabilistic first ply failure analysis of composite laminates using a high-fidelity multi-scale approach called M-SaF (Micromechanics-based approach for Static Failure). To this end, square and hexagonal representative unit cells of composites are developed to calculate constituent stresses with the help of a bridging matrix between macro and micro stresses referred to as the stress amplification factor matrix. Separate failure criteria are applied to each of the constituents (fiber, matrix, and interface) in order to calculate the damage state. The successful implementation of M-SaF requires strength properties of the constituents which are the most difficult and expensive to characterize experimentally, limiting the use of M-SaF in the early design stages of a structure. This obstacle is overcome by integrating a Bayesian inference approach with M-SaF. An academic sample problem of a cantilever beam is used to first demonstrate the calibration procedure. Bayesian inference calibrates the M-SaF first ply failure model parameters as posterior distributions from the prior probability density functions drawn from lamina test data. The posterior statistics were then used to calculate probabilistic first ply failure for a range of different laminates.

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)0.000
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 score0.192
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations10
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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