MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2735874594 · doi:10.1115/1.4037273

Failure Modes in Hybrid Titanium Composite Laminates

2017· article· en· W2735874594 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Engineering Materials and Technology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Behavior of Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialFibre-reinforced plasticTitaniumDelamination (geology)DurabilityComposite laminatesComposite numberUltimate tensile strengthToughnessAdhesiveFailure mode and effects analysisLayer (electronics)Metallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hybrid titanium composite laminates (HTCLs) combine the benefits of thin titanium sheets and fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) composite laminates to design high performance light-weight materials with optimized impact resistance, fracture toughness, durability, and/or thermal performance. This paper starts with a detailed review of typical failure modes observed in HTCLs. The critical manufacturing process of thin grade II titanium sheets combined with HexPly G947/M18 carbon fiber-reinforced polymer laminates is described in detail. This includes the evaluation of titanium surface preparation techniques, which guarantee good adhesive bonding. A systematic experimental study of different HTCL configurations under tensile loading confirms that the major failure modes are debonding between the titanium sheet and the FRP laminate, matrix cracking in the 90 deg plies of the FRP laminate and interlaminar delamination. The results show that HTCLs made from woven carbon FRP plies show higher ultimate strengths and strain at breaks than HTCLs containing a cross-ply composite core made from unidirectional (UD) prepreg.

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 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.476

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.199 · 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