Flexural and Shear Properties of Silica Particle Modified Glass Fiber Reinforced Epoxy Composite
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study is to develop a new method of manufacturing glass fiber reinforced epoxy composites and to quantitatively show that the properties of such a new material are superior to that of a conventional fiber reinforced polymer composite of the same material base composition. To achieve this objective, the glass fiber (GF) reinforced epoxy composite samples are prepared in four different ways: Method A, using ‘clean’ GF as the reinforcement (i.e., with no modification or additional treatment to the as-received fiber); Method B, modifying the surface of the GF with silica particles before applying in the composite system; Method C, prestressing the clean GF during the curing procedure of the composite; and Method D, prestressing the silica modified GF during the curing procedure of the composite. Preparation by Method D is the newly developed method. The finished composite samples are tested by the three-point bend test and the short-beam shear test under ASTM standard conditions. The results indicate that the composites prepared by the new method, which include the GF surface modification and the GF prestressing preparation conditions, have an excellent combination of properties when compared to the specimens made by the other three methods.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".