Thermal and mechanical anisotropy in compression molded carbon fiber/resin composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A 53% (vol.) chopped carbon fiber (2.5 cm long) in resin composite was molded under uniaxial extensional deformation conditions (for a charge draw ratio (DR) of 1, 2, 4, and 8) to produce flat panels 4 mm thick. Axial direction tensile strength increased by 42% from DR 1 to 2 and rose slightly at higher DR, while a slight increase occurred for the transverse direction values over the whole range. Axial direction thermal conductivity (t.c.) increased 32% from DR 1 to 2 then, decreased at DR 4 and DR 8, while normal t.c. showed a moderate decrease and transverse t.c. showed no definite trend. Measurements of the Hermanns fiber orientation function in the core of the samples showed a gradual increase from 0.3 to 0.45 (with respect to draw direction) while surface values ranged from about 0.08–0.15 over the range of DR. Results for a 30% (vol.) carbon fiber (6.5 mm long) composite showed similar trends. A flow analysis based on the power law model indicates that surface shear effects tend to rotate fibers in the surface region out of the plane of the panel. This limits the axial t.c. and tensile strength at high DR for the 30% composite, while the decrease in axial t.c. at high DR is caused by orientation of the 3rd phase (filler) for the 53% composite. Results show that the nondestructive nature of the t.c. measurements described allows an indirect measure of tensile strength for molded components in service. POLYM. COMPOS., 26:684–688, 2005. © 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.
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".