MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3181843860 · doi:10.1177/00219983211031649

Induced defect layer method to characterize the effect of fiber tow gaps for the laminates manufactured by automated fiber placement technique

2021· article· en· W3181843860 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammadhossein Ghayour, Mehdi Hojjati, Rajamohan Ganesan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Composite Materials · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Behavior of Composites
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialComposite numberComposite laminatesStiffnessFinite element methodFiberStructural engineeringFiber-reinforced compositeSofteningLayer (electronics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Automated manufacturing defects are new types of composite structure defects induced during fiber deposition by robots. Fiber tow gap is one of the most probable types of defects observed in the Automated Fiber Placement (AFP) technique. This defect can affect the structural integrity of structures by reducing structural strength and stiffness. The effect of this defect on the mechanical response of the composite laminates has been investigated experimentally in the literature. However, there is still no efficient numerical/analytical method for damage assessment of composite structures with distributed induced gaps manufactured by the AFP technique. The present paper aims to develop the Induced Defect Layer Method (IDLM), a new robust meso-macro model for damage analysis of the composite laminates with gaps. In this method, a geometrical parameter, Gap Percentage (GP), is implemented to incorporate the effect of induced-gaps in the elastic, inelastic, and softening behavior at the material points. Thus, while the plasticity and failure of the resin pockets in conjunction with intralaminar composite damages can be evaluated by this method, the defective areas are not required to be defined as resin elements in the Finite Element (FE) models. It can also be applied for any arbitrary distributions of the defects in the multi-layer composite structures, making it a powerful tool for continuum damage analysis of large composite structures. Results indicate that the proposed method can consider the effect of gaps in both elastic and inelastic behavior of the composite laminate with defects. It also provides good agreement with the 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 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)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.694

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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