Open hole tension and compression behavior of 3D braided composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The damage tolerant behavior of 3D braided composites is evaluated in terms of the open‐hole notch strength test under tensile and compressive loading. The influence of fiber architecture is evaluated by comparing 3D braid with and without axial yarns as well as laminated composites based on ASTM quasi‐static tension and compression testing standard. The results show that the notched and un‐notched properties of the two types of 3D braided composites are similar under tension and compression loading. Comparing to laminates, both types of 3D braided composites demonstrated superior notch insensitivity than laminated composites. For the failure behavior of the 3D braided composites, under tension loading, crack of both notched specimens tends to propagate along the notch and finally render the specimen to failure. Clear cracks usually presented on the samples without axial yarns, while not for the specimens with axial yarn. Under compression loading, the two types of 3D braided composite are also macroscopically similar, showing transverse fracture. The modified Fabric Geometry Model is used to predict the tensile properties of 3D braided composite. The predicted and experimental results are shown to be in good agreement.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".