MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effects of impactor geometry and multiple impacts on low-velocity impact response and residual compressive strength of fiber-reinforced composite laminates

2025· article· en· W4409903119 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

VenueComposites Part B Engineering · 2025
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
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialCompressive strengthResidual strengthComposite numberResidualComposite laminatesFiberIzod impact strength testUltimate tensile strength

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fiber-reinforced composite panels used in aerospace applications often experience low-velocity impacts (LVI) during service and maintenance by objects of various shapes, sizes, and masses, which can significantly reduce the panel's residual compressive strength. This study provides a detailed numerical and experimental analysis of LVI and compression after impact (CAI) failure mechanisms of laminates impacted by different impactor sizes and masses, along with damage accumulation during multiple impacts, and presents an effective approach for modeling progressive damage in composite laminates. The experiments were conducted using three hemispherical impactors with diameters of 6.35 mm (sharp), 25.4 mm (standard), and 96 mm (blunt), at impact energy levels of 30 J and 75 J, corresponding to barely and clearly visible impact damage (BVID and CVID). Quasi-isotropic IM7/977-3 composite specimens, sized 254 mm × 304.8 mm, were used to better represent large composite panels and study a wider range of impact scenarios. A finite element modeling methodology was developed based on the integrated enhanced LaRC05 failure criteria and the cohesive zone modeling technique to predict various composite failure modes, such as fiber breakage, pull-out, kinking, crushing, and splitting, as well as matrix cracking and delamination. The LaRC05 fiber tensile failure criterion was revised based on experimental data, improving the accuracy of the model at higher impact energies. At the same energy level, the sharp impactor caused more concentrated and severe damage, leading to lower CAI strength. The blunt impactor caused less surface damage but similar internal delamination and CAI strength compared to the standard impactor. • Impactor geometry effects were studied on impact damage severity and residual compressive strength. • The blunt impactor caused significant internal delamination at higher impact energies despite minimal surface damage. • Damage area alone is not a reliable predictor of residual strength; failure modes play a key role. • Repeated impacts shifted the failure modes from matrix cracking and delamination to fiber breakage at higher energy levels. • The revised fiber tensile failure criterion improved model accuracy at high impact energies.

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 score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.225 · 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