MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W858720804 · doi:10.1177/0021998316635238

Investigation of intra-ply shear behavior of out-of-autoclave carbon/epoxy prepreg

2016· article· en· W858720804 on OpenAlexaff
Rahul P Mohan, Hassan Alshahrani, Mehdi Hojjati

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Composite Materials · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechanical Behavior of Composites
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialEpoxyThermosetting polymerDigital image correlationAutoclaveShear (geology)Composite numberTaguchi methods

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The successful formation of composite parts without defects remains a challenging issue due to the complexity of the forming process. A better understanding of the factors that cause these flaws is necessary to optimize the operation. The present work investigates the in-plane shear behavior of out-of-autoclave carbon epoxy thermoset prepregs OOA and its effect on wrinkling using the picture frame test. The deformability of OOA at the real processing conditions helps to understand the applicability of such material for forming processes such as the double-diaphragm forming technique with aims to minimize overall manufacturing time and cost. Tests were performed at varying temperatures and displacement rates in order to determine their contribution to the fabric deformability. Digital image correlation was used to take sequential images at various stages of deformation and capture the onset of wrinkling. It was found that the processing temperature (resin viscosity), displacement rate, and layer counts (layer interactions) are the three most important parameters that influence the wrinkling. Presence of resin between the layers makes them interact with each other and therefore has an impact on the each layer shear angle. These parameters were then analyzed using the Taguchi and analysis of variance techniques to determine which factor has the most significant influence on the wrinkling.

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)0.001
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.587

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.223 · 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

Citations25
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Composite MaterialsSame topicMechanical Behavior of CompositesFrench-language works237,207