Study on energy absorption characteristics of hybrid thin-walled tubes reinforced with carbon fibers and glass fibers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To enhance the mechanical performance of single fibers and reduce the cost of carbon fiber composites, a hybrid fiber thin-walled tube structure with carbon/glass fiber alternating ply design was proposed. Experimental and numerical methods revealed the failure mechanisms and energy absorption properties of alternately layered carbon/glass fiber-reinforced tubes (C/GFRP tubes) under quasi-static compression. Results demonstrated significant improvements in energy absorption without increasing costs. The energy absorption mechanism mainly includes interlayer delamination of CFRP and GFRP, FRP fronds tearing and curling, and frictional dissipation between the tube and rigid plate. Compared to single-fiber structures, C/GFRP Tube exhibited a 23.16% improvement in specific energy absorption and a 20.99% improvement in crushing force efficiency. And a novel theoretical formula for the mean crushing force of hybrid fiber thin-walled tubes was established and verified, with an error of less than 8%. In addition, the influence of different structural parameters, ply angle configurations, and fiber hybrid ratios on energy absorption characteristics was systematically analyzed, providing a theoretical basis and design reference for the design of efficient and lightweight energy absorption devices.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".