Experimental and analytical behavior of sandwich composite beams: Comparison of natural and synthetic materials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, the flexural behavior of sandwich composite beams made of fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) skins and light-weight cores are studied. The focus is on the comparison of natural and synthetic fiber and core materials. Two types of fiber materials, namely glass and flax fibers, as well as two types of core materials, namely polypropylene honeycomb and cork, are considered. A total of 105 small-scale sandwich beam specimens (50 mm wide) were prepared and tested under four-point bending. Test parameters were fiber types (flax and glass fibers), core materials (cork ad honeycomb), skin layers (0, 1, and 2 layers), core thicknesses (6–25 mm), and beam spans (150 and 300 mm). The load–deflection behavior, peak load, initial stiffness, and failure mode of the specimens are evaluated. Moreover, the flexural stiffness, shear rigidity, and core shear modulus of the sandwich composites are computed based on the test results of the two spans. An analytical model is also implemented to compute the flexural stiffness, core shear strength, and skin normal stress of the sandwich composites. Overall, the natural fiber and cork materials showed a promising and comparable structural performance with their synthetic counterparts.
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 | 0.001 | 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".