MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2775249464 · doi:10.2495/cmem-v6-n3-551-562

The effects of test set-up on the apparent flexural modulus of thin angle-ply laminates using standard four-point bend testing

2017· article· en· W2775249464 on OpenAlexaff
Diane Wowk, Catharine Marsden

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Computational Methods and Experimental Measurements · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComposite Structure Analysis and Optimization
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityRoyal Military College of CanadaRoyal Ottawa Mental Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThree point flexural testFlexural strengthComposite materialMaterials scienceFlexural modulusStructural engineeringModulusPoint (geometry)EngineeringMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Four-point bending is a standard test method that can be used to determine flexural properties of a material or for quality control. The ASTM and ISO test standards specify an allowable range of set-up parameters such as the coupon width, the support span and the load span that can be used to determine the flexural modulus. When angle-ply laminates are tested in four-point bending the apparent flexural modulus is over predicted due to the bending-twisting coupling and the interaction between the coupon and the test fixture. In the present study, the effect of the test configuration on the apparent flexural modulus of thin angle-ply laminates in four-point bending is evaluated for six different layups. It is shown that test set-ups that allow more twisting of the coupon will result in apparent flexural moduli that are closer to the theoretical value. The torsional moments induced by the test fixture are quantified, and it is shown that they are directly responsible for the increase in the apparent flexural modulus.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Computational Methods and Experimental MeasurementsSame topicComposite Structure Analysis and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207