MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2947165029 · doi:10.1177/0021998319853023

Micro-computed tomography analysis of natural fiber and bio-matrix tubular-braided composites

2019· article· en· W2947165029 on OpenAlexafffund
Brianna Bruni-Bossio, Garrett W. Melenka, Cagri Ayranci, Jason P. Carey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Composite Materials · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNatural Fiber Reinforced Composites
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Research Council CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialBraidVoid (composites)Curing (chemistry)Volume fractionComputed tomographyComposite numberMicrostructure

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is an increasing demand for the use of “green”-based materials as reinforcement and matrix materials in composites. However, the ability of these natural-based materials to perform as consistently and reliably as conventional materials is still relatively unknown. A key importance in the viability of these materials is the evaluation of the content of voids and imperfections, which may affect the properties of the entire composite. In this study, the microstructure of tubular-braided composites manufactured from cellulose fibers and a partially bio-derived resin was studied with the use of micro-computed tomography. These methods were used to determine the effect of modifying braid angle, resin type, and curing method on fiber volume fraction, void volume, and void distribution. It was determined that the void content increased with the increase in braid angle, and vacuum-bagging reduced the total void content. The sample with the smallest braid angle produced with vacuum-bagged curing contained a void fraction of 1.5%. The results of this study proved that the materials used could be viable for further testing and development and that micro-computed tomography imaging is valuable for identifying how to improve consistency and minimize imperfections to create more accurate and reliable natural fiber-braided 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.236
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations14
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Composite MaterialsSame topicNatural Fiber Reinforced CompositesFrench-language works237,207