MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2901348385 · doi:10.22401/anjs.00.1.06

Erosion Wear and Hardness of Glass Fiber / Epoxy with Nano and Micro TiO2 Hybride Composites

2018· article· en· W2901348385 on OpenAlexaff
Aseel Basim Al-Zubaidi, Ahmed A. Al‐Tabbakh, Shatha Riyad Ahmed, Amine Achour

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Al-Nahrain University-Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicErosion and Abrasive Machining
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialScanning electron microscopeAbrasiveEpoxyComposite numberVolume fractionNano-Glass fiberFiberTitanium dioxideParticle (ecology)Particle sizeShore durometer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this research is to prepare and study (Glass Fiber / Epoxy) with nano and micro Titanium dioxide (TiO2) composites with different volume percentage of nano and micro TiO2 powder of 2%, 4%, and 6% volume fraction. Atomic force microscopy techniques was used to measure the grain size of nano TiO2 powder (average diameter was 46 nm) and particle size analyzer techniques was used. Erosive wear behavior of this composite under three different impingement angles of 30°, 60° and 90° and three angular silica sand abrasive particle sizes approximately 425, 600 and 850 μm and hardness (shore D) were studied. In general the erosion wear of micro composites have lower erosion resistance than other nano-based compounds. Erosion resistance increase as the volume fraction increase. Nano composites of GF / EP with TiO2 have many advantages over micro composites from the view point of wear and hardness tests. The worn surface features of unfilled and filled G-E composites were examined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and results indicates more severe damage to matrix and glass fiber in unfilled composite system as compared to TiO2 filled composites.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.464
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.200 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Al-Nahrain University-ScienceSame topicErosion and Abrasive MachiningFrench-language works237,207