MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7043680170

Structural bonding of the next generation large canadarm (NGLC) ground test bed

2012· article· en· W7043680170 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueNPARC · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFiber-reinforced polymer composites
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdhesive bondingAdhesiveTorsion (gastropod)Composite numberStiffnessvon Mises yield criterionJoint (building)Finite element methodBending moment
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Next Generation Large Canadarm (NGLC) ground test bed is constrained by the physical stowage volume available on future exploration vehicles. NGLC demonstrates a reduction in the launch package of a large manipulator system while maintaining reach capability through deployment and retraction. NGLC is comprised of two telescoping segments, connected by three pitch joints. The segments consist of an inner and outer boom with a lock mechanism for either position. A rail network allows relative translation of the booms. NGLC bending and torsional stiffness requirements were met through the use of composite materials and adhesive bonding. Each boom features a centre composite section bonded to two aluminum sections using a stepped-lap joint. The elimination of mechanical fasteners maximized NGLC stiffness through a reduction of the clearance required between the telescoping assemblies and an increase of the inner segment diameter. Progressive damage finite element (FE) models optimized the lay-up and predicted positive margins of safety for combined bending and torsion load cases. Continuum mechanics analysis of the bonded joint was used to predict adhesive and adherend stresses due to the applied loads. A modular bonding apparatus with constrained relative adherend translation accommodated customized bonding processes for each operation. Steel rail segments were simultaneously bonded to the composite section inner surfaces, while the composite and aluminum sections were sequentially bonded. The joint and the bonding processes were optimized for bondline thickness control and minimum void entrapment. Key challenges included maintaining dimensional tolerances over the large structure, excess adhesive management and fouling of inaccessible critical surfaces.

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 score0.125
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.189 · 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
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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