Comparison of Damage Development in Random Fiber-reinforced Polymers (FRPs) under Cyclic Loading
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It has been well known that suppression of debonding and matrix cracking could improve fatigue resistance of fiber-reinforced polymers (FRPs). In this study, the roles of these two mechanisms on the damage development in FRPs with in-plane random glass fiber reinforcement have been investigated. Two polymers are used as the matrix - isophthalic polyester and polyurethane. Polyurethane-based FRP shows higher ultimate tensile strength (UTS) and strain to failure, but lower elastic modulus. Under zero-tension fatigue loading (with the maximum stress level equivalent to 50% of their respective UTS), the change in modulus, energy dissipation rate, and the corresponding damage development process are investigated. The damage development is analyzed at the macroscopic and microscopic levels, and found to be closely related to the modulus degradation and change in energy dissipation rate. The study concludes that the two FRPs show significantly different behavior under fatigue loading. The polyurethane-based FRP had better fatigue resistance, in view of the mild modulus change and the capability of absorbing energy through plastic deformation. Results from the study suggest that the excellent fatigue resistance of the polyurethane-based FRP is due to good toughness of the matrix.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 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".