Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present thesis has developed an energy-based critical plane fatigue damage parameter to assess the fatigue damage of unidirectional GRP and CFRP composites. The proposed model is based on the physics and the mechanism of fatigue cracking within three damage regions of the matrix (I), the fiber-matrix interface (II), and the fiber (III) in unidirectional GRP and CFRP composites as the number of cycles progresses. The model involved the shear and normal energies calculated from stress and strain components acting on (i) a relatively ductile matrix, (ii) the matrix-fiber interface, and (iii) the unidrectional brittle fibers. For the regions III, and I the cracking is dominantly based on the maximum shear stress and the maximum normal principal stress, respectively and the fatigure damage was assessed based on the Varvani-Farahani damage approach. For region II, the damage process along the matrix-fiber interface was evaluated based on the Plumtree-Cheng approach. The proposed fatigue damage analysis has addressed the cracking and damage progress within three regions over the life of unidirectional GRP and CFRP composites and showed a good capability in unifying the experimentally obtained fatigue lives with various off-axis angles and stress ratios as compared with other well-known damage criteria available in the literature.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".