Comparison of the Performance of Basalt Fiber-Reinforced Composites Incorporating a Recyclable and a Conventional Epoxy Resin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
resin (BR) and conventional and widely used room-cured epoxy systems (BE). Specifically, the study probes the tensile and compressive responses of the composites fabricated by vacuum-assisted resin transfer molding. Experimental results revealed that the tensile strength of basalt-Recyclamine was higher than its counterpart (464 MPa compared to 390.9 MPa). At the same time, the BR performed only marginally better under compression, with a strength of 237.7 MPa compared to 233.9 MPa for BE. However, the BR demonstrated significantly enhanced ductility reflected by its greater compressive strain capacity (3.9% compared to only 1.1%). Different microscopic analyses unveiled distinct failure mechanisms, with more progressive failure patterns observed in BR compared with the brittle fracture characteristics of the BE composite. The performance of several micromechanical models was also investigated, with their results corroborating with the experimental results with varying degrees of accuracy. The statistical analysis showed great consistency in the results, with the CoV value below 10%. Experimental results indicated that the basalt-Recyclamine composites can be considered a promising sustainable alternative to traditional polymeric resin-based systems due to their balanced mechanical performance and environmental advantages.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".