MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2752427240

Impact behavior of thin thermoplastic composites dependant on manufacturing parameters and layup

2012· article· en· W2752427240 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M. Wedekind, Loleï Khoun, P. W. Krempl, H. Baier, Pascal Hubert

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Behavior of Composites
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThermoplastic compositesComposite materialThermoplasticMaterials science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The amount of structural application of carbon composites has grown massively in the last years. Carbon composites are known to provide superior performance with regard to their specific strength and stiffness. One of the major drawbacks, limiting the fields of application and defining knock down factors, is their sensitivity for impact damages. Thermoplastic resin systems are known to provide a better performance on impact behavior compared to thermoset resin systems. Within this paper, an investigation on the impact behavior of carbon composite plates with PEEK resin system is presented. The impact performance is derived by measurement of damage size, penetration depth and residual strength. For structural applications, composites provide the possibility to take use of tailored mechanical properties of laminates, like strength and stiffness by defining specific stacking sequences. Since the impact performance is also affected by the layup, different laminate configurations, starting from low in plane stiffness up to high stiffness, were investigated. Particularly for lightweight applications thin laminates are relevant. To provide the capability to determine the post impact compressive strength of thin plates, avoiding premature failure caused by buckling, a modified test bed for compression after impact test has been developed. Furthermore, within this work the influence of different manufacturing parameters on the impact performance and material properties was investigated, thus allowing an optimized manufacturing process with regard to cost and performance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.246
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicMechanical Behavior of CompositesFrench-language works237,207