MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366595093 · doi:10.6000/1929-5995.2023.12.03

Design Concepts for Peel-Dominant Adhesive Joints in Aeronautic Applications

2023· article· en· W4366595093 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
J. P. M. Lopes, R.D.S.G. Campilho, Mohammed Amine Bellali, Mohammed Baghdadi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Research Updates in Polymer Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Behavior of Composites
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdhesiveMaterials scienceAerospaceJoint (building)Adhesive bondingStructural engineeringLap jointFinite element methodComposite materialWork (physics)Composite numberCurvatureCohesive zone modelComputer scienceMechanical engineeringFracture mechanicsEngineeringLayer (electronics)Aerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The adhesive bonding technique is employed from the aeronautical/aerospace industry to current house products. To comply with the requirements of distinct applications, different joint configurations are available to the designer. While single-lap joints (SLJ) are the most common in application and research, double-lap joints, scarf joints and T-joints find specific applications. T-joints are seldom studied in the literature, but these are used, for instance, in aircraft to bond the stiffener beams to the skin, or in the cars between the B-pillar and the rocker. Due to the high stress concentrations, T-joints often fail under average stresses much lower than the adhesive strengths, giving rise to the necessity for proper design and strength improvement methodologies. This work initially aims to validate the cohesive zone modelling (CZM) technique with experiments, and then use it to numerically evaluate and optimize the performance of T-joints subjected to peel loads. CZM is nowadays regarded as the most powerful strength prediction tool for adhesive joints, and can be a valuable tool to improve T-joints. Different features are addressed for a complete analysis: adhesive type, geometrical parameters, dual-adhesive technique for strength improvement, and composite joints. The evaluated geometrical parameters are the base adherend thickness (a), T-part thickness (t), overlap or bonding length (l) and curvature radius (r). As a result of this work, the model was successfully validated, and clear design guidelines were provided to define the ideal geometric and material (adhesive) conditions for best performance.

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)0.005
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 score0.072
Threshold uncertainty score0.336

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.084
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.331 · 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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Research Updates in Polymer ScienceSame topicMechanical Behavior of CompositesFrench-language works237,207