Issue 60

D. S. Lobanovet alii, Frattura ed Integrità Strutturale, 60 (2022) 146-157; DOI: 10.3221/IGF-ESIS.60.11

a

b

c Figure 4: Relationship between interlaminar shear strength and exposure time for the composite exposed to process water (a), sea water (b), and machine oil (c) solutions at different temperatures

Confidence Interval [0.025 0.975]

Model

Coefficient

Std. Error

t-value

p-value

1

Const.

34.49 -2.125 -1.129 -0.0223 -0.0195 -0.0122 0.00061 -0.0022 0.0475 -0.0028 0.1245 32.08

0.45

76.75 -5.753 -3.057 -4.003 -2.092 176.14 -0.609 2.182 -5.478 1.762 -7.096 4.615

< 0.001*** < 0.001***

33.60 -2.858 -1.862 -0.0334 -0.0379 -0.0520 0.00006 -0.0030 -0.0060 -0.0036 0.0710 31.72

35.39 -1.392 -0.396 -0.0112 -0.0010 0.0276 0.00117 -0.0014 0.1011 -0.0020 32.45

Pr. water Sea water

0.369 0.369 0.006 0.009

0.003**

Temp.

< 0.001***

Time

0.039*

2

Const.

0.18

< 0.001***

Time

0.0200 0.00028 0.0004 0.0270 0.0004 0.0270

0.544

Temp.×Time

0.032*

Pr. water×Temp.×Time

< 0.001***

Pr. water×Time

0.081

Sea water×Temp.×Time

< 0.001*** < 0.001***

Sea water×Time 0.1780 Significance levels: ***p-val. ≤ 0.001 (significant), **p-val. ≤ 0.01 (very significant), *p-val. ≤ 0.05 (highly significant). Table 5: Multiple linear regression results for interlaminar shear strength.

152