Comparative Performance of Kevlar, Glass and Basalt Epoxy- and Elium-Based Composites under Static-, Low- and High-Velocity Loading Scenarios—Introduction to an Effective Recyclable and Eco-Friendly Composite
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In general, the majority of fiber-reinforced polymer composites (FRPs) used in structural applications comprise carbon, glass, and aramid fibers reinforced with epoxy resin, with the occasional utilization of polyester and vinyl ester resins. This study aims to assess the feasibility of utilizing recyclable and sustainable materials to create a resilient composite suitable for structural applications, particularly in scenarios involving low-velocity and high-velocity impact (LVI, HVI) loading. The paper presents a comparative analysis of the performance of E-glass, aramid, and eco-friendly basalt-reinforcing fabrics as reinforcement fibers in both thermosetting (epoxy) and recyclable thermoplastic (Elium©) resins. Given the limited research on Elium composites, especially those incorporating basalt-reinforcing fiber, there is an urgent need to expand the databases of fundamental mechanical properties for these diverse composites. This necessity is exacerbated by the scarcity of the literature regarding their performance under low- and high-velocity impact loadings. The results of this study will demonstrate the potential of basalt-reinforced Elium composite as an effective recyclable and environmentally friendly structural material system for both static and dynamic loading conditions.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".