MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889659941 · doi:10.3390/jcs2030053

Finite Element Analysis and Experimental Characterisation of SMC Composite Car Hood Specimens under Complex Loadings

2018· article· en· W2889659941 on OpenAlexafffund
Josh Kelly, Edward Cyr, Mohsen Mohammadi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Composites Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Behavior of Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNew Brunswick Innovation Foundation
KeywordsComposite materialFlexural strengthMaterials scienceVolume fractionUltimate tensile strengthComposite numberBendingFinite element methodThree point flexural testDisplacement (psychology)Deformation (meteorology)Volume (thermodynamics)Transverse planeStructural engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Composite materials have recently been of particular interest to the automotive industry due to their high strength-to-weight ratio and versatility. Among the different composite materials used in mass-produced vehicles are sheet moulded compound (SMC) composites, which consist of random fibres, making them inexpensive candidates for non-structural applications in future vehicles. In this work, SMC composite materials were prepared with varying fibre orientations and volume fractions (25% and 45%) and subjected to a series of uniaxial tensile and flexural bending tests at a strain rate of 3 × 10−3 s−1. Tensile strength as well as failure strain increased with the increasing fibre volume fraction for the uniaxial tests. Flexural strength was found to also increase with increasing fibre percentage; however, failure displacement was found to decrease. The two material directions studied—longitudinal and transverse—showed superior strength and failure strain/displacement in the transverse direction. The experimental results were then used to create a finite element model to describe the deformation behaviour of SMC composites. Tensile results were first used to create and calibrate the model; then, the model was validated with flexural experimental results. The finite element model closely predicted both SMC volume fraction samples, predicting the failure force and displacement with less than 3.5% error in the lower volume fraction tests, and 6.6% error in the higher volume fraction tests.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Composites ScienceSame topicMechanical Behavior of CompositesFrench-language works237,207