Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35458273›Full record

ArticlePolymers2022

Mechanical Behavior of GFRP Laminates Exposed to Thermal and Moist Environmental Conditions: Experimental and Model Assessment.

Getahun Tefera, Sarp Adali, Glen Bright

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Polymers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Getahun TeferaDiscipline of Mechanical Engineering, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041, South Africa.
Sarp AdaliDiscipline of Mechanical Engineering, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041, South Africa.
Glen BrightDiscipline of Mechanical Engineering, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban 4041, South Africa.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper presents an experimental and analytical study about the mechanical response at a different temperature on glass fiber-reinforced polymer laminates. The effect of different environmental conditions on compressive, tensile, stiffness, and viscoelastic behavior (storage modulus, loss modulus and damping ratio) of laminates were investigated. Before testing, laminates were preserved in a deep freezer at -80 °C, -20 °C, 0 °C, and room temperature (25 °C) for up to 60 days. Results confirmed that temperatures ranging from -80 to 50 °C, which were below the glass transition temperature of the epoxy resin, did not significantly affect the compressive, tensile, and stiffness performance of all laminates. When the testing temperature increased to 100 °C, the properties were decreased significantly due to the damaging of the fiber/matrix interface. Additionally, results obtained from dynamic mechanical analyses tests showed a drop-in storage modulus, high peaks in loss modulus and high damping factor at the glass transition region of the epoxy resin. The highest storage modulus, two phases of glassy states and highest damping ratio on the -80/G group of laminates were obtained. The accuracy of experimental results was assessed with empirical models on the storage modulus behavior of laminates. The empirical model developed by Gibson et al. provided accurate estimates of the storage modulus as a function of temperature and frequency. The remaining empirical models were less accurate and non-conservative estimations of laminates stiffness.

Indexed as

empirical modelsglass/epoxy laminatemechanical propertiestemperature behavior

Identifiers

PMID35458273
PMCPMC9030624

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.