Fatigue behavior of continuous glass fiber composites: Effect of the matrix nature
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The effect of the matrix morphology on the fatigue behavior of a continuous glass fiber/polypropylene (GF/PP) composite system was studied by means of stress‐life and mode II cyclic delamination tests. The stress‐life behavior of a GF composite is considerably affected by the nature of the matrix. A two‐stage fatigue damage curve was observed in the composite made with a PP matrix, whereas a three‐stage curve was observed in the composite made with a thermoset polyester matrix. For a fatigue stress higher than 50% of the yield stress, the PP matrix composite showed a considerably longer fatigue life than the thermoset polyester matrix composite. Mode II cyclic delamination tests showed that the morphology itself of the PP matrix also played an important role. Higher fatigue delamination growth rates, at given strain energy release rates, and lower strain energy release rates at failure were obtained for a composite showing a coarse spherulitic morphology and well‐marked interspherulitic regions than for a composite showing a finer spherulitic morphology and less‐marked interspherulitic regions. While the fatigue mode of the composite with a coarse spherulitic morphology was interspherulitic, that of the composite with a finer spherulitic morphology was transpherulitic.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".