Effect of cyclic tests on the shape memory performance of <scp>GO‐CF</scp> hybrid‐reinforced <scp>SMPC</scp>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study investigated the effect of cyclic tests on the shape memory performance of graphene oxide‐carbon fiber (GO‐CF) hybrid‐reinforced shape memory polymer composite (SMPC). The shape memory performance was evaluated by four indexes: shape fixation rate, shape recovery rate, recovery time, and maximum recovery force. The results showed that the service life of the GO‐CF hybrid‐reinforced SMPC prepared by the vacuum infiltration hot‐press forming experimental system process (VIHPS) was 16 cycles. After 16 repetitions, the shape fixation rate decreased by approximately 6.6% and the shape recovery rate decreased by approximately 14.0%. At this time, the shape recovery rate was lower than 90%. The recovery time increased by 62.2% and the maximum recovery force decreased by 70.1%. The maximum recovery force exhibited the highest performance attenuation. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to photograph and analyze the microstructures of the samples under various cyclic tests. It was concluded that the main factor affecting the shape memory performance of GO‐CF hybrid‐reinforced SMPC is the life of fiber bundle. During cyclic testing, the fiber was prone to kinks, tensile damage and other defects, which increased the probability of reducing the length of the fiber bundle. Therefore, the probability of fiber fracture was improved, and the shape memory performance of the GO‐CF hybrid‐reinforced SMPC was attenuated.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".