Flexural Response of Cross-Ply Flax Fiber–Reinforced Polymer Skinned Foam Cylinders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The flexural response of 12 2-m-long and 152-mm-diameter fiber-reinforced polymer (FRP) skinned members with foam cores was investigated. Nine cylinders with various flax-FRP (FFRP) laminate arrangements and foam core densities were fabricated and tested in flexure; these were compared with three glass-FRP (GFRP) skinned specimens. Varying the foam density from 32 to 65 kg/m3 was found to be insignificant in FFRP skinned beams because their failure was governed by fiber tensile rupture. However, increasing the foam density increased the capacity of the GFRP skinned members that failed in compression. The most effective ways to increase strength-to-weight and stiffness-to-weight ratios of FFRP skinned cylinders are to increase the number of longitudinal fiber layers and decrease the foam core density. A FFRP cylinder with five longitudinal and three transverse layers was able to develop over 80% the strength-to-weight and stiffness-to-weight ratios as a reference GFRP cylinder, substantially higher than the 30%–50% values seen in coupon tests. Although the FFRP cylinder performed fairly well, further work on the member axial, impact, and durability resistance is recommended.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".