Comparative study of the mechanical properties of woven and unidirectional fibres in discontinuous long-fibre composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Discontinuous long-fibre (DLF) composites can be made with randomly oriented unidirectional pre-impregnated composite chips. High fibre volume fraction unidirectional fibre chips provide good mechanical properties to the DLF composite architecture, which enables this material to contribute to bridging the gap between continuous-fibre and randomly-oriented short-fibre composites. However, it is well known that unidirectional fibres have highly anisotropic in-plane behaviour, which causes weak points in the parts when chips are oriented at unfavourable angles. This can be problematic since chips are randomly oriented in DLF composites. To overcome this problem, this research utilizes woven fibre chips instead of unidirectional fibre chips to fabricate DLF composites. Woven fibres diminish the potential for weak points due to their more homogenized in-plane mechanical properties. For comparison purposes, compression moulded carbon/PEI samples were made from both unidirectional chips and 5HS woven chips. Bending and tensile tests following ASTM guidelines were performed to compare both types of fibre arrangement. The results show that woven fibre chips increase the mechanical properties of the DLF composites and reduce their variability.
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 | 0.000 | 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".