Wettability and Impact Performance of Wood Veneer/Polyester Composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fiber-reinforced thermosetting composites have been of interest since the 1940s due to their ease of use in processing, fast curing times, and high specific stiffness and strength. While the use of plant fibers in a polyester matrix has been thoroughly studied, only limited information is available regarding using wood as reinforcement. In this study, composites of thin wood veneer and a polyester matrix were made and the difficulties in the lamination and curing processes were investigated. Sheets of Douglas fir, maple, and oak veneers using a catalyzed polyester resin were assembled as unidirectional, balanced, and unbalanced cross-ply laminates. These were compared to control specimens using glass fiber as reinforcement. The impact properties of the samples, with respect to the laminate thicknesses, were characterized using a drop-weight impact tester. The wettability and surface roughness of unsanded and sanded wood veneers were also investigated. Results showed that Douglas fir cross-ply laminates had an impact energy equivalent to glass fiber laminates, making them an interesting alternative to synthetic fiber composites. Wood/polyester laminates absorbed a considerable amount of energy through a higher number of fracture modes. The balanced lay-up limited twisting of the wood/polyester composites. The lowest contact angle and highest wettability were observed in unsanded Douglas fir veneers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".