Performance of composite sandwich structures under thermal cycling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effect of thermally induced microcracks on mechanical performance of a space grade laminated sandwich panel is investigated. A simple non-contact setup using liquid nitrogen is developed to subject the material to low temperature of −170℃ with cooling rate of 24℃/min. Then the samples are exposed to the elevated temperature of 150℃ inside oven. Microcracks formation and propagation are monitored through microscopic observation of cross-section during the cycling. Flatwise tensile test is performed after a number of cycles. A correlation is made between number of cycles and flatwise mechanical strength after quantifying the microcracks. It is observed that the crack formation gets saturated at about 40 cycles, avoiding the need to conduct more thermal cycles. Microcrack formation both at the free edge and middle of laminate was observed. The crack density at the middle was comparatively less than the ones found on the free edges. Results for non-contact cooling are compared with samples from direct nitrogen contact cooling. Microscopic inspection and flatwise test show differences between contact and non-contact cooled samples. Flatwise tensile strength for non-contact cooled samples shows 15% reduction, while the contact cooled samples have about 30% decrease in bond strength. A 3D finite element analysis is conducted to qualitatively identify the location of stress concentration which can be possible sites of crack formation. Good agreement is observed between the model and experimental results.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".