MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7019911281

Impact and compression behaviour of AFP manufactured carbon/epoxy composites containing gaps and overlaps

2011· other· en· W7019911281 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2011
Typeother
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFiber-reinforced polymer composites
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWavinessCompression (physics)Compressive strengthComposite numberReduction (mathematics)Izod impact strength testStress (linguistics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this paper is to present the effect of gaps and overlaps on the mechanical properties of an AFP manufactured 24-plies quasi-isotropic carbon/epoxy composite. Tests are carried out using 7 defect configurations in Open Hole Compression (OHC) specimens (ASTM D 6484) and 4 defect configurations in drop weigh impact tests specimens (ASTM D7136). Ultrasonic C-scan observations and compression after impact tests (ASTM D7137) were performed on impacted specimen. Tests results show that 90° defects have the most important effect on OHC strength (between 7% and 13% strength reduction for 90° gaps) due to 45° plies waviness whereas specimen with 0° gaps or 0° overlaps have a maximum strength variation of 7%. It is also observed that AFP defects have a local effect on composite impact response but they do not have a significant effect on coupons impact response. An analytical model which predicts the effect of 0° defects on the compressive properties is proposed in this paper. Using classical laminate theory, this model recalculates the material's properties considering the effect of the defect on the global mechanical properties of the specimen. The prediction of the model show very good agreement with the experimental results and demonstrate that 0° defects do not create stress concentrations which lead to specimen failure.

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 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.621
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.205 · 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.

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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNPARCSame topicFiber-reinforced polymer compositesFrench-language works237,207