Fatigue behavior of Elium®-based thermoplastic composites fabricated by liquid composite molding : A review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The introduction of infusible thermoplastic polymers, such as Elium® resins, has significantly impacted the field of composite materials. These thermoplastics have facilitated the production of fibre-reinforced thermoplastic composites through liquid composite molding, offering ease and cost efficiency of manufacturing and recyclability potential. While initial research focused on the quasi-static mechanical behavior of Elium®-based composites, understanding their long-term fatigue behavior is equally essential to establish their viability as alternatives to thermoset composites in various industries such as automotive, wind turbines, and marine applications. This paper reviews recent studies on the fatigue performance of Elium® resin reinforced by glass, carbon, and flax fibres and compares the behavior to those made with the typical epoxy matrices as a benchmark. The effect of matrix type, fibre type, laminate lay-up, fibre volume fraction, and environmental conditions on composite fatigue are also analyzed. The currently available data shows that Elium®-based composites can offer comparable fatigue properties to epoxy composites over a wide range of composite compositions and testing environments. This suggests a high potential for these new materials, especially in light of their significant life-cycle and sustainability benefits. An insight is also given on the comparison of the processing requirements and properties of Elium® resin compared to other relevant thermoplastics such as polyphenylene sulfide (PPS) and polyether ether ketone (PEEK). The review concludes with suggestions for future research opportunities and directions. • Elium®-based composites have shown comparable fatigue results to epoxy-based composites. • Elium®-based composites can have better stiffness retention in fatigue tests after ageing. • Flax fibre composites outperform glass fibre composites in certain loading conditions and architectures. • Unidirectional composites have shown superior fatigue behavior than other orientations. • The effect of V f on the fatigue performance of composites needs further investigation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".