Glass flexural strength, comparison

Figure 7.7 Comparison of flexural strength of glass fiber reinforced engineering thermoplastics. Data on the unfilled resins are included for comparison. (To convert from psi to Pa multiply by 6895.)...

Figure 3.28 Comparison of flexural strength values for polyamide and polypropylene glass fiber types. , PPG 3242 , PPG 3540. (From Uniroyal Chemical Co., Inc., literature.)...

In comparison to the IPS Empress microstructure, a different type of leucite glass-ceramic was developed by Schweiger et al. (1999). The leucite-reinforced glass-ceramic was developed as a biomaterial for dental restoration. The material can easily be machined by a CAD/CAM system. The mechanical properties are characterized by a flexural strength of 135-160 MPa and a fracture toughness as of 1.3 MPa m (section ProCAD in Section 4.4.2 dental glass-ceramics). 

Figure 4-39 Flexural strength of pressed glass-ceramic IPS EMPRESS 2 in comparison to other dental materials, natural tooth, and technical ceramics (Kappert 1998). a) ISO limit, b) tooth enamei, c) tooth dentin, d), e) ieucite-based ceramics, f) iPS EMPRESS , g) feldspar ceramic, h) mica glass-ceramic, i) sintered spinei and infiltrated glass, j) sintered AlgOg and infiltrated glass, k) IPS EMPRESS 2,1) dense sintered AI2O3.

In Table 3, a comparison is made between two levels of chemical coupling for flexural strength, modulus and fatigue data at 20 and 40wt% fiber glass levels. The mega coupled SGFR polypropylene (FT)... 

From comparison of mechanical properties of the roving and fabric composites it is clear that, fabric composites were more brittle and less anisotropic than roving composites, with almost 3-times lower flexural strength and 5-times higher shear modulus. Note that fabric composites contained lower amounts of fiber. It is also seen that. E-glass fabric composites were more brittle than basalt ones. 

---