Heterogeneous Surface Wear Models for the Prediction of the Specific Wear Rate of Woven Carbon Fibre Reinforced Epoxy Composites
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heterogeneous surface wear (HSW) models have been derived to predict the specific wear rates of woven carbon fibre reinforced epoxy composite materials. The specific wear rates of unidirectional carbon fibre/epoxy composites, with fibres orientated both parallel and antiparallel to the direction of sliding, are used as input variables. The first model (EW mode) is based on an assumption of uniform thickness reduction during wear, but uneven surface pressure. The second model (EP mode) is based on an assumption of even surface pressure throughout the test. The specific wear rates of plain and 5HS woven composite panels were measured to validate the accuracy of the models. It was found that the EW model was able to accurately predict the specific wear rates of the two types of woven composites under mild abrasive conditions (120 grit sandpaper). However, under more severe abrasive conditions (36 grit sandpaper), the woven panels exhibited a new wear mechanism caused by tearing of the out-of-plane fibres at the crossover points of warp and weft fibres. This mechanism caused both models to under-predict the specific wear rates of the woven composites in severe abrasive conditions. However, the EW model can be used with confidence under less abrasive conditions, where the asperities do not have significant interactions with the out of plane fibres.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it