Tensile properties retention of aged carbon‐FRP sheets made of fully and partially bio‐based resins and conventional epoxy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article investigates the environmental aging of two types of bio‐resin carbon fiber reinforced polymer (CFRP) through immersion in saltwater at various temperatures, and compares results to conventional epoxy (E)‐CFRP. The two types are: a fully bio‐resin, namely furfural alcohol (FA), derived from corn‐cobs and sugarcane, and the second is a partial bio‐resin, namely epoxidized pine oil blend (EP) extracted from pine tree sap. Control specimens showed that EP resin resulted in similar CFRP strength and modulus to E resin, whereas FA resin resulted in a 9% lower strength and 14% higher modulus. These were shown by the Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to be statistically insignificant. After 240 days exposure, tensile strength retentions of EP‐CFRP at 23°C, 40°C, and 50°C were 97%, 98%, and 92%, respectively, while those of FA‐CFRP were 83%, 81%, and 82%. For reference, retentions of E‐CFRP were 101%, 90%, and 95%. ANOVA showed that the differences in retentions between EP‐ and E‐CFRP are statistically insignificant at all temperatures, while the differences between FA‐ and E‐CFRP are significant at 23°C and 50°C after 240 days only. Also, the reductions in strength over the 240 days for each resin type are insignificant, except for FA‐CFRP at 50°C. CFRP generally suffered remarkably less deterioration than glass‐FRP at elevated temperatures, for both E and FA resins. POLYM. COMPOS., 39:2081–2092, 2018. © 2016 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 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".