A Study of the Friction Coefficients of Unidirectional and Woven Carbon Fibre/Epoxy Composites
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The friction coefficients of unidirectional carbon fibre/epoxy composites (with the fibres parallel and antiparallel to the sliding direction) were measured under severe abrasive conditions. Aluminium oxide sandpapers with three different grits (36, 80, and 120) were used as the counter surfaces. Three different applied loads (5, 10, 22N) and two different sliding speeds (2 m/s, 4 m/s) were selected as the testing parameters. Under these conditions, composites with fibres parallel to the sliding direction had a significantly lower friction coefficient. Using the measured friction coefficients of unidirectional composites, a modified rule of mixtures equation was developed to predict the friction coefficients of woven carbon fibre/epoxy composites under the conditions. The model is based on the hypothesis that the more wear resistant regions of the weave (fibres that are parallel to the sliding direction in this case) would protect the less wear resistant regions (fibres that are antiparallel to the sliding direction), and that the load is redistributed to yield equal wear rates for the two zones. It was found that the model was able to accurately predict the friction coefficients of the woven composites for the abrasive conditions tested in this study.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it