MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4289856865 · doi:10.3390/jcs6080224

Prediction of Damage in Non-Crimp Fabric Composites Subjected to Transverse Crushing: A Comparison of Two Constitutive Models

2022· article· en· W4289856865 on OpenAlexaff
Milad Kazemian, Aleksandr Cherniaev

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Composites Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Behavior of Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCrimpMaterials scienceComposite materialComposite numberDelamination (geology)Transverse planeConstitutive equationStructural engineeringDisplacement (psychology)Finite element methodEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Non-crimp fabrics (NCFs) are increasingly used in industry for manufacturing of composite structures due to a combination of high mechanical properties and excellent manufacturability. As with other composites, in-service damage can be a cause for severe reduction in load-carrying capacity of NCF-reinforced plastics. In this experimental and numerical study, two constitutive material models previously used only for damage prediction in unidirectional (UD) tape and woven fabric-reinforced materials (LS-DYNA’s *MAT_ENHANCED_COMPOSITE_DAMAGE—MAT54 and *MAT_LAMINATED_COMPOSITE_FABRIC—MAT58) were evaluated for simulating transverse crushing of composite parts processed from a non-crimp carbon fabric. For this purpose, UD NCF components of tubular shape were subjected to transverse crushing through a controlled indentation of a metallic cylinder, and results of the experiment were compared with numerical modeling. Considered verification metrics included the observed and the predicted patterns of interlaminar damage, the extent of delamination, as well as the ability of the models to replicate force-displacement response exhibited by the tested specimens.

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)0.001
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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.851

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Composites ScienceSame topicMechanical Behavior of CompositesFrench-language works237,207