MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2985989205 · doi:10.1002/pamm.201900120

Mechanical Microstructure Characterization of Discontinuous‐Fiber Reinforced Composites by means of Experimental‐Numerical Micro Tensile Tests

2019· article· en· W2985989205 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePAMM · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComposite Material Mechanics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialMicrostructureFiberUltimate tensile strengthTensile testingComposite numberFracture (geology)Characterization (materials science)Finite element methodEpoxyFiber-reinforced compositeStructural engineeringNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The mechanical characteristics and especially the damage behavior of discontinuous‐fiber reinforced composites greatly depend on its constituents and also on its microstructural properties, namely the extent and distribution of fiber agglomerations, the fiber orientation distribution, and the fiber‐matrix interfaces. Several methods exist to individually analyze the different microstructural properties, such as µCT scanning to obtain the distribution of the fibers and their orientation and the Microbond test to obtain the interfacial characteristics. However, the interdependencies of the individual characteristics and the initiation of fracture with respect to the microstructure are still hard to analyze regarding a real composite structure. For this reason, the microscopic fracture behavior of a glass fiber reinforced sheet molding compound (SMC) shall be investigated by means of a micro tensile test. Therefore, a specimen with a gauge length of approx. 1 mm, 0.3 mm width and 0.1 mm thickness is extracted from a composite plaque and put to an in‐situ observed tensile test. With a finite element model of each specimen, including the position and orientation of each fiber, the fiber‐matrix‐interface characteristics are extracted with a reverse‐engineering approach. The tests show a microstructure‐specific fracture behavior, which depends on the fiber dispersion, the fiber orientation, and the fiber‐matrix interfaces. The numerical simulations well agree with the physical experiments, making the obtained parameters suitable for further simulations of the investigated structure on a larger scale.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.753

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.191
Teacher spread0.188 · 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