Experimentally and analyzed property of carbon fiber reinforced thermoplastic and thermoset plates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The tensile and fatigue properties of long unidirectional (UD) and crossply (CR) carbon fiber reinforced plastics (CFRPs) were investigated. The CFRPs in this study were fabricated from 60% CF and various resins: epoxy, polyamide (PA6), polyphenylene sulfide (PPS), and polyether ether ketone (PEEK). The ultimate tensile strength sUTS of Epoxy-CFRP was found to be about twice that of PEEK-CFRP. Relatively high tensile strengths were found for PPS- and PA6-CFRP in the thermoset resin group, although these were still only about 85% of the strength of epoxy-CFRP. The tensile and fatigue strengths of the CR-CFRPs were less than half those of the UD-CFRPs, even though high ductilities were found for the CR-CFRPs. These high ductilities can be attributed to the crosslinking fiber effect and the low proportion of CFs in the loading direction. The sUTS values of CFRPs depend not only on the tensile strengths s and volume fractions V of CF and resin (i.e., through the conventional compound law sUTS = sfiberVfiber + sresinVresin), but also on several material properties, including the wettability of the CF by the resin. On the basis of the material properties, the ultimate tensile strengths of various UD- and CR-CFRPs were well estimated numerically through a statistical analysis, which afforded better estimates than those obtained from the compound law.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".