On residual tensile strength after lightning strikes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study of post lightning strike residual strength is still relatively underdeveloped in the literature. Different approaches including in-plane compression or flexural testing have been used, but in-plane tensile loading post-strike has not been studied in detail. Although previous attempts have been made to determine the residual strength using Compression-After-Lightning (CAL) tests on composite laminates, these have been limited and not readily applicable under tensile loads. Therefore, this work completes Tension-After-Lightning (TAL) testing at 75 kA on composite laminates, a more realistic peak current than previously reported for TAL tests, to assess the knock-down in strength post-strike. The measured average TAL failure stress was 716 MPa, a reduction of 23 % from the baseline tensile failure stress of 929 MPa in the literature. This confirms a similar knock-down factor reported at lower peak currents (e.g. 50 kA), but the new TAL specimen geometry ensures that the lightning damage is contained within both the lightning and TAL specimen widths. In addition, a new Finite Element (FE) based virtual test was conducted, considering 0° ply splitting, and validated with the TAL tests herein. The TAL simulation predicted the residual tensile failure stress well, within 6 % of the measured value.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".