Cited by 40Mechanical Behavior of CompositesFatigue and fracture mechanicsNumerical methods in engineering

Comparison of machine learning methods and finite element analysis on the fracture behavior of polymer composites

Balcıoğlu, H. Ersen, Seçkin, Ahmet Çağdaş·2021·Archive of Applied Mechanics

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00419-020-01765-5

Cites

60 of 60 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Balcıoğlu, H. E., & Seçkin, A. Ç.
Affiliations
  • Usak University (TR)
  • Adnan Menderes University (TR)
Corresponding author
Balcıoğlu, H. Ersen
Venue
Archive of Applied Mechanics
Published
2020-09-09
Volume
91
Issue
1
Pages
223-239
ISSN
  • 0939-1533 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-0681
OpenAlex
W3085870618
Cited by
40
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 2
FWCI
2.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Archive of Applied Mechanics (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanics of Materials › Mechanical Behavior of Composites
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanics of Materials › Fatigue and fracture mechanics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanics of Materials › Numerical methods in engineering
Keywords
fracture behavior, polymer composites, composite laminates, mode I fracture, mode II fracture, mixed-mode fracture, glass fiber reinforced composites, carbon fiber composites, J-integral, crack tip analysis, machine learning regression, finite element method comparison

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review