Experimental Investigation of Tensile Properties in a Glass/Epoxy Sample Manufactured by Vacuum Infusion, Vacuum Bag and Hand Layup Process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to achieve a high-quality composite, a proper manufacturing technique should be used. Glass Fiber Reinforced Plastic (GFRP) structures are commonly manufactured using hand layup, vacuum bag and vacuum infusion process (VIP) which are cost effective techniques. This paper compares the tensile strength, modulus, inter-laminar bonding and surface macroscopy of GFRP composites made by hand layup, vacuum bag and VIP process. For this reason, at first GFRP sample were manufactured using these three methods and then tested for tensile properties. In the next step, these samples were modeled numerically and compared. The results show that the strength of the sample made by VIP process is 20 % higher than the hand layup and 11 % higher than vacuum bag sample. Also, the modulus of the sample achieved using VIP is 21 % higher that hand layup and 15% higher than vacuum bag technique. By comparing the failure mechanism of the samples, it was observed that the inter-laminar bonding is highest in VIP and then vacuum bag and lastly hand layup due to a smaller number of voids. Lastly the numerical results showed to have a good agreement with the experimental results.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".