MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411199842 · doi:10.1115/ssdm2025-151227

Progressive Fatigue Failure Characterization of Bonded Repaired Sandwich Composites Using Experimental and Multiscale Modelling Approaches

2025· article· en· W4411199842 on OpenAlexaff
Jacob Muthu, Ikara Makhate

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Behavior of Composites
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialCharacterization (materials science)Structural engineeringEngineeringNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Predicting fatigue failure of composite materials is crucial for ensuring the structural integrity of aerospace structures. Both experimental and multiscale modelling (MSM) approaches were developed to characterize the failure of the bonded-repaired sandwich composites. A four-point bending setup under fatigue loading conditions was employed for experimental characterization of failure behaviors, while the MSM approach bridged micro, meso and macro length scales to analyze these behaviors. The experimental and MSM results were compared at each scale to validate the proposed MSM-based fatigue failure prediction. At the microscale level, the experimental specimen exhibited cusp-like failures due to fatigue loading. The MSM analysis showed complete failure of matrix elements after 100 cycles, while the fibre elements remained intact. At the mesoscale, both the experimental and MSM results showed steaks-like failures with distinct staggered patterns, stopping at the edge of the warp tows. Additionally, extensive inter-two failures were seen across large surface areas of the weft and warp tows. At the macroscale, the failure surfaces were wide with deep cracks resulting from progressive matrix cracking as the fatigue cycles increased. Though the focus was on critical point B, similar behaviours were also observed on critical point A as well.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.484
Threshold uncertainty score0.595

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMechanical Behavior of CompositesFrench-language works237,207