MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4308119850 · doi:10.3390/ma15217667

Elevated Strain Rate Characterization of Compression Molded Direct/In-Line Compounded Carbon Fibre/Polyamide 66 Long Fibre Thermoplastic

2022· article· en· W4308119850 on OpenAlexafffund
Matthew Bondy, Pouya Mohammadkhani, John Magliaro, William Altenhof

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Behavior of Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialUltimate tensile strengthStrain rateCompression (physics)Tensile testingTension (geology)PolyamideThermoplasticStiffnessModulusStrain (injury)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Compression molded direct compounded carbon fibre D-LFT was evaluated at quasi-static strain rates through uniaxial tension tests (including a specimen size study) and a variation of the ISO 6603-2 puncture test. No significant size effects were observed for the modulus or strength obtained from tensile specimens with four gauge lengths (6.25 mm to 57 mm). Failure strain decreased by 27.5%/29.9%, respectively, across the gauge length range for the 0°/90° directions. Intermediate strain rate (10 s−1 to 200 s−1) characterization was completed through uniaxial tension tests on a novel apparatus and ISO 6603-2 puncture tests. Intermediate rate tensile tests showed minimal rate sensitivity for the 0°/90° directions. Initial stiffness was 50% higher for ISO 6603-2 impact tests compared to quasi-static tests. Displacement at the onset of fracture was 95% lower for impact tests compared to quasi-static loading. The peak force/displacement at peak force were reduced for impact tests (21% and 20%, respectively) compared to quasi-static testing.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.222
Teacher spread0.208 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterialsSame topicMechanical Behavior of CompositesFrench-language works237,207