MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2020342226 · doi:10.1002/pc.20127

Physical and mechanical properties of pultruded composites containing fillers and low profile additives

2005· article· en· W2020342226 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePolymer Composites · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEpoxy Resin Curing Processes
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialFlexural strengthShrinkageVinyl esterThermal expansionThree point flexural testEpoxyBendingPolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This article deals with the effect of fillers and additives content on the physical and mechanical properties of unidirectional pultruded glass/polyester composites. The physical characterization consisted of determining the void volume fraction (Vv), density, shrinkage ratio, coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE), and dynamic mechanical properties. The mechanical tests consisted of three‐point‐bending tests under static, impact, and fatigue loading. The low profile additive (LPA) has been found to compensate the cure shrinkage by microvoid formation. Dynamic mechanical analysis measurements show that the LPA slightly lowers the glass transition temperature Tg and increases the internal damping Tan δ. The transverse coefficient of thermal expansion was found to be sensitive to the LPA content. Three‐point bending tests show that the interlaminar shear strength (ILSS) is slightly sensitive to the fillers and LPA content, but the flexural strength is not affected. Impact test results on short beam shear and flexural specimens show the same behavior as in the static tests except that the LPA content has a detrimental effect on the flexural impact properties. The fatigue tests performed show that the effect of fillers is not significant, while the LPA effect is mixed. It seems that there is an LPA content for which the fatigue resistance is maximized. Finally, the wide range of behaviors and span‐to‐depth ratios investigated suggest that the ILSS as measured according to the ASTM 2344 recommendations can be largely misleading because of the unavoidable compressive yielding under the loading nose. For the materials investigated, higher span‐to‐depth ratio are more representative of the ILSS. POLYM. COMPOS., 27:71–81, 2006. © 2005 Society of Plastics Engineers

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.

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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.750

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.198 · 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