MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2591431882 · doi:10.1177/0021998317694424

Experimental characterization of the pore size distribution in fibrous reinforcements of composite materials

2017· article· en· W2591431882 on OpenAlexafffund
Beliny Bonnard, Philippe Causse, F. Trochu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Composite Materials · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPolymer Foaming and Composites
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialCapillary actionComposite numberPorosityCapillary pressureMolding (decorative)Characterization (materials science)TextileFiltration (mathematics)FiberPorous mediumNanotechnology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study uses capillary flow porometry to investigate the porous structure of engineering fabrics used in high-performance polymer composites. This technique consists of applying air pressure to a previously wetted sample to progressively expel the liquid from the pores. A porometry testing device commonly employed to characterize filtration media was used as the principal tool for this investigation. Four types of fibrous fabrics made of glass and carbon fibers with different textile architectures have been experimentally characterized with a through-thickness setup. This allowed obtaining the pore size distribution inside the tested material. In all the cases studied, the porometry technique was able to detect in a reproducible way a bimodal pore size distribution reflecting the presence of both micropores (inside the fiber yarns) and mesopores (between the yarns). Moreover, experimental results indicate that the method can be used to study the influence of the textile pattern on the pore size distribution. Overall, the study shows that capillary flow porometry can give valuable information on the dual scale structure of fibrous reinforcements, which plays a critical role during the impregnation stage of Liquid Composite Molding processes. Because of its simplicity and speed of execution, the proposed approach appears to be a promising way to complement other sophisticated techniques already used for composites such as microscopy and X-ray microtomography.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.656

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Composite MaterialsSame topicPolymer Foaming and CompositesFrench-language works237,207