Mode II Interlaminar Fracture Toughness of Flax/Glass/Epoxy Hybrid Composite Materials: An Experimental and Numerical Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The mode II interlaminar fracture toughness characteristics of flax/glass/epoxy hybrid laminates were experimentally and numerically examined. Three types of hybrid composites that are made of flax (F) and glass (G) and with different layup sequences (i.e., Hybrid I [0 G/0 F]8S, Hybrid II [04G/04F]S, and Hybrid III [04G/(90/0)2F]S) were investigated. The experimental results obtained from end notch flexural tests showed that both the mode II fracture toughness and flexural strength of Hybrid I composites were higher than those for Hybrid II & III composites. This was attributed to the presence of bridging in several interfaces of the flax plies and the glass plies in Hybrid I. A second delamination propagation between the flax/epoxy midplane plies was observed in Hybrid II and III and this helped to lower both the mode II fracture toughness and flexural strength. The finite element simulations employed the virtual crack closure technique and the cohesive zone model. The results showed that both methods successfully predicted mode II interlaminar fracture toughness characteristics of the Hybrid I composites, but significantly overpredicted the values for both Hybrid II & III due to the presence of a secondary delamination propagation.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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".