Comparison of tensile strength and fracture toughness under mode I and II loading of co-cured and co-bonded CFRP joints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adhesive bonding is the elective joining system between Carbon-Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) parts because, with respect to fastening, it allows a large connection area, no additional parts (hence weight saving) and no need to drill holes into the composite, that is always detrimental for the strength due to the possibility of developing damage. However, the choice of bonding CFRP should be evaluated as alternative to direct curing in terms of strength and durability, compared to cost and manufacturing time and complexity. In this work, a comparison between co-cured and co-bonded CFRP is done with respect to tensile strength and mode I and mode II fracture toughness, in order to understand whether co-bonding guarantees the same performance of a co-cured composite part.Adhesive bonding is the elective joining system between Carbon-Fiber Reinforced Polymer (CFRP) parts because, with respect to fastening, it allows a large connection area, no additional parts (hence weight saving) and no need to drill holes into the composite, that is always detrimental for the strength due to the possibility of developing damage. However, the choice of bonding CFRP should be evaluated as alternative to direct curing in terms of strength and durability, compared to cost and manufacturing time and complexity. In this work, a comparison between co-cured and co-bonded CFRP is done with respect to tensile strength and mode I and mode II fracture toughness, in order to understand whether co-bonding guarantees the same performance of a co-cured composite part.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".