MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380077842 · doi:10.6089/jscm.48.96

Prediction of Off-Axis Nonlinear Material Behavior for Unidirectional CFRTP Using Numerical Material Tests

2022· article· en· W4380077842 on OpenAlexaff
Masato SOMEMIYA, Norio HIRAYAMA, Koji Yamamoto, Seishiro Matsubara, Kenjiro Terada

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Japan Society for Composite Materials · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Load-Bearing Analysis
Canadian institutionsCybernet Systems Corporation (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeformation (meteorology)AnisotropyMaterials scienceConstitutive equationUniaxial tensionNonlinear systemComposite materialShear (geology)Material propertiesUltimate tensile strengthStructural engineeringPhysicsFinite element methodEngineeringOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to examine the nonlinear material behavior of unidirectional carbon fiber reinforced thermoplastics (UD-CFRTP) under off-axis loading using numerical material tests (NMTs). A method to identify the appropriate material properties of an assumed macroscopic anisotropic constitutive law is proposed. To identify the macroscopic material properties using an optimization method, seven macroscopic deformation modes (three vertical directions, three shear directions, and a deformation pattern in the off-axis direction of 45º) were studied for preparing the virtual material responses. Identification accuracy was verified by comparing the predicted macroscopic material responses with those obtained using the actual off-axis tensile test. The extensive use of the NMTs with seven macroscopic deformation modes enabled the successful confirmation of the material properties of the assumed macroscopic constitutive law for UD-CFRTP. This was identified by comparing the NMT results obtained using the off-axis macroscopic deformation and standard six modes with those obtained using only six modes.

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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.714

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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 head0.245
Teacher spread0.225 · 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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Japan Society for Composite MaterialsSame topicStructural Load-Bearing AnalysisFrench-language works237,207