MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200323524 · doi:10.3390/jcs5120324

Buckling Optimization of Variable Stiffness Composite Panels for Curvilinear Fibers and Grid Stiffeners

2021· article· en· W4200323524 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

VenueJournal of Composites Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicComposite Structure Analysis and Optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurvilinear coordinatesBucklingStructural engineeringCurvatureFiberStiffnessComposite numberGridFinite element methodMaterials scienceComposite materialEngineeringMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Automated Fiber Placement (AFP) machines can manufacture composite panels with curvilinear fibers. In this article, the critical buckling load of grid-stiffened curvilinear fiber composite panels is maximized using a genetic algorithm. The skin is composed of layers in which the fiber orientation varies along one spatial direction. The design variables are the fiber orientation of the panel for each layer and the stiffener layout. Manufacturing constraints in terms of maximum curvature allowable by the AFP machine are imposed for both skin and stiffener fibers. The effect of manufacturing-induced gaps in the laminates is also incorporated. The finite element method is used to perform the buckling analyses. The panels are subjected to in-plane compressive and shear loads under several boundary conditions. Optimization results show that the percentage difference in the buckling load between curvilinear and straight fiber panels depends on the load case and boundary conditions.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.337
Threshold uncertainty score0.429

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.215 · 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