MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362519612 · doi:10.3390/polym15071723

Comparison of the Low-Velocity Impact Responses and Compressive Residual Strengths of GLARE and a 3DFML

2023· article· en· W4362519612 on OpenAlexafffund
Ke Wang, Farid Taheri‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬

Bibliographic record

VenuePolymers · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Behavior of Composites
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsResidualGLAREMaterials scienceComposite materialCompressive strengthComputer scienceAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The impact performance and compression after impact characteristics of 2D and 3D fiber metal laminates (FMLs) are investigated both experimentally and numerically. Commercial-grade GLARE3A-3/2-0.3, and a recently developed FML, which incorporates a unique 3D glass fabric, are used in the study. Both FMLs have similar areal densities. The specimens are subjected to impact loading at three energy levels-low, intermediate, and high. The test results indicate that GLARE is slightly more resilient under impact compared to the 3DFML. However, since GLARE is much thinner than the 3DFML, the two-material systems exhibit very different failure modes. GLARE and 3DFML lost up to 62.6% and 41.5% of their original compressive load-bearing capacity, respectively. Robust and accurate finite element models are developed that can predict the damage evolution and failure modes of both FMLs. Knowing the level of reduction in the residual load-bearing capacity of a material resulting from an impact is of practical importance when assessing the service life of materials. However, further exploration would be required to determine how the information obtained through testing relatively small-sized specimens in a laboratory environment can be extrapolated to larger real-life structural components.

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 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 score0.264
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolymersSame topicMechanical Behavior of CompositesFrench-language works237,207