MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2968723407 · doi:10.1177/0021998319867470

Micromechanical evaluation of failure models for unidirectional fiber-reinforced composites

2019· article· en· W2968723407 on OpenAlexaff
Azam Arefi, F.P. van der Meer, Mohammad Reza Forouzan, Mohammad Silani, Mahmoud Salimi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Composite Materials · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Behavior of Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicromodelMicromechanicsMaterials scienceRepresentative elementary volumeComposite materialFinite element methodStress (linguistics)FiberMatrix (chemical analysis)Structural engineeringComposite numberMicrostructureEngineeringPorosity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, micromechanical simulations are employed to evaluate the performance of the Tsai–Wu and Hashin failure criteria for fiber-reinforced composites, especially in stress states whose experimental reproduction is complicated. Micromechanical responses are generated using a finite element model of a representative volume element, in which only the matrix material experiences damage and the fibers are assumed to be elastic. Micromechanical simulations of basic load cases are used to calibrate macrolevel criteria. Finally, the response of the micromodel and macromodels is compared for various load combinations. Despite a good agreement between Tsai–Wu criterion predictions and micromodel results in a wide range of stress states, some stress combinations are highlighted for which the strength is not predicted accurately. Additionally, accuracy of the Hashin criterion suffers from ignoring the influence of stress in fiber direction on matrix failure.

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 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 score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.815

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Composite MaterialsSame topicMechanical Behavior of CompositesFrench-language works237,207