MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402945135 · doi:10.1016/j.mtcomm.2024.110559

An integrated approach toward digital design and simulation of the automated overbraiding process for composite manufacturing

2024· article· en· W4402945135 on OpenAlexaff
Yasmine Abdin, Mohammad Ghaedsharaf, Louis Laberge Lebel

Bibliographic record

VenueMaterials Today Communications · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicManufacturing Process and Optimization
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique MontréalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceProcess (computing)Composite numberProcess engineeringManufacturing engineeringSystems engineeringComposite materialComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study presents a new integrated hybrid modeling framework that combines kinematic models with Finite Element Analysis (FEA) to simulate the overbraiding process on non-circular and variable cross-section mandrels in composite manufacturing. By combining the computational efficiencies of kinematic models with the detailed physical insights from FEA simulations, this hybrid method provides a holistic solution for designing and prototyping overbraided structures. Specifically applied to a complex rectangular-to-square mandrel, the approach accurately predicts braid angles, validated against physical braiding experiments covering a range of target angles. The achieved results highlight the model's accuracy and emphasize its potential to boost the efficiency and precision of overbraiding in industrial settings, thereby reducing the need for costly and time-consuming physical braiding iterations. • The study presents a hybrid kinematic-FEA model for overbraiding process simulation. • The modeling approach was applied to a complex, variable cross-section mandrel. • The model predictions were validated over a variety of target braid angles. • The proposed method enhances the accuracy and efficiency of overbraiding design.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.631
Threshold uncertainty score0.378

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMaterials Today CommunicationsSame topicManufacturing Process and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207