MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406183473 · doi:10.18280/acsm.480604

Numerical and Experimental Analysis for Flexure Behavior of Pyramidal Core Sandwich Composite

2024· article· fr· W4406183473 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Karema J. Swaeh, Ahmad Farhan Hamzah

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnales de Chimie Science des Matériaux · 2024
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldEngineering
TopicStructural Analysis and Optimization
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComposite numberMaterials scienceComposite materialCore (optical fiber)Structural engineeringSandwich-structured compositeEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to the significant need in applications for lightweight and high strength, studies began on a sandwich composite with a pyramid core because it provides design flexibility and offers improvement in bending resistance so is widely preferred compared to other core's forms.While the strength of sandwich panels with lattice cores is influenced by the material and topology, the mechanical properties of these structures have to be enhanced.It requires the use of high-strength materials, so this research presents a composite sandwich structure containing carbon fiber sheets 0/90 with epoxy used as the sandwich skin., while epoxy is used as the pyramid core.Two basic pyramidal geometries are designed according to the ASTM C393-00 standard, investigated under a three-point bending test by quasi-static bending loads, and explored to explore the effect of different basic unit cell topologies and core densities on the mechanical behavior of the sandwich.From the experimental results obtained the second design obtained the highest maximum load (3.9 kN) and the highest stiffness (88.3 MPa) compared to the first design, whose maximum stiffness is 39 MPa.According to the analysis results, the sandwich panel with the first geometry (2×5 unit cell) has the highest Von -Mises stress about (414 Mpa) and relative density of 0.28, while the second geometry (2×3 unit cell) has the lowest Von Mises stress (201.5 Mpa), lowest deformation (1.8127 mm), less elastic strain (0.06249), and low and relative density of 0.16 when compared with the first geometry, which made it a better design than the other and this agree with the experimental part.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnales de Chimie Science des MatériauxSame topicStructural Analysis and OptimizationFrench-language works237,207