MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883539601 · doi:10.1177/1099636218789614

Robust numerical approaches for simulating the buckling response of 3D fiber-metal laminates under axial impact – Validation with experimental results

2018· article· en· W2883539601 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sandwich Structures & Materials · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Behavior of Composites
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNational Research Council CanadaMitacs
KeywordsFinite element methodStructural engineeringFiberComputationShell (structure)BucklingMaterials scienceComputer scienceComposite materialEngineeringAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The reliability and efficiency of three different numerical modeling approaches for simulating the response of a newly developed 3D fiber-metal laminate (3D-FML), subject to axial impact loading, are considered in this paper. The main objective of the study is to establish the most robust numerical framework for analyzing the performance of such complexly configured hybrid materials subject to axial impact loading in a fairly accurate, yet efficient manner. LS-DYNA finite element software is used for the purpose. The models include: (i) a full 3D solid model, where all 3D-FML constituents are modeled with 3D elements; (ii) a model with intermediate complexity, in which two different element types are used to model the metallic skins and 3D-fiberglass/foam core, respectively; and (iii) a simplified scheme, consisting of a single layer of thin-shell elements, representing all constituents of the FML. An experimental investigation is also conducted in parallel to verify the accuracy of the modeling schemes. Force and axial-shortening histories, energy absorption capacity, and overall qualitative behavior obtained numerically are compared to experimental results. Both accuracy and computation cost are considered as the performance criteria, all with the aim of providing the reader with some perspective for robust modeling of such geometrically sophisticated composites, subject to a complex loading mechanism.

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)0.001
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 score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.543

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.248 · 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