MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Low-velocity impact (LVI) and compression after impact (CAI) of Double-Double composite laminates

2024· article· en· W4402839083 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueComposite Structures · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Behavior of Composites
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaCarleton University
FundersAlliance de recherche numérique du CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMinistère de la Défense NationaleCanadian Armed Forces
KeywordsComposite laminatesComposite numberCompression (physics)Materials scienceComposite materialStructural engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• The impact damage tolerance of quadriaxial laminates was compared with equivalent Double-Double (DD) laminates. • A computer tool was developed to find equivalent DD laminates and assess the homogenization condition. • A validated high-fidelity finite element model was used to study the compression after impact (CAI) of DD laminates. • DD laminates can be used instead of conventional quadriaxial laminates without compromising impact damage tolerance, while benefiting from the design advantages of the DD concept. Tailorability is a key advantage of fiber-reinforced composites over other material systems. While tailoring a single isolated laminate is relatively simple, challenges arise when designing larger integrated components while ensuring compatibility between laminates and avoiding sharp changes in local stiffness. The innovative Double-Double (DD) laminate design method simplifies the optimization and processing of laminates by incorporating 4-ply building blocks consisting of +ϕ, −ϕ, +ψ, and −ψ ply orientations. As a relatively new concept, DD laminate design requires careful assessment to ensure its performance is equivalent to that of conventional designs. The current study compares impact damage tolerance of quadriaxial (QUAD) laminates consisting of 0°, 90°, and ±45° ply orientations with equivalent DD laminates under Low-Velocity Impact (LVI) and Compression After Impact (CAI) loadings. To this end, a validated three-dimensional high-fidelity finite element model capable of capturing fiber breakage, splitting, kinking, as well as matrix cracking and delamination, was used. A computer tool was developed to identify equivalent DD laminates and to find the best stacking sequence for achieving layup homogenization. Three equivalent DD laminates were selected for the [0/45/90/−45] 4s . The first laminate had an equal in-plane stiffness [A] matrix ([67.5/–22.5/22.5/−67.5] 8T ), the second laminate had an equal flexural stiffness [D] matrix ([64.5/−17/17/−64.5] 8T ), and the third laminate ([65.5/−18.5/18.5/−65.5] 8T ) had a similar [D] matrix while keeping the difference between each element of [A] matrices below 10 %. The results indicate that the QUAD laminates can be replaced by equivalent DD without compromising impact damage tolerance while benefiting from the improved design and manufacturing ease of the DD laminate configuration.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.254
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.268 · 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