1：Experimental Design and Method Selection:

The study involved formulating various epoxy resin systems with different flame retardants and accelerators to optimize curing kinetics and flame-retardant properties. Dynamic mechanical analysis (DMA) was used to assess thermo-mechanical properties, and standard tests (UL94, LOI, BS476-7, BS6853) were employed for flame retardancy evaluation.

2：Sample Selection and Data Sources:

Samples were prepared using specific epoxy formulations (e.g., D4 system) with glass fiber fabrics and honeycomb cores. Data were derived from laboratory measurements and comparisons with commercial phenolic resin composites (BAC 400).

3：0). List of Experimental Equipment and Materials:

3. List of Experimental Equipment and Materials: Equipment included a DMA (TA Q800), hot-press, and various testing apparatus for flame and mechanical tests. Materials included DGEBA epoxy, DCDA curing agent, accelerators (modified imidazole, modified urea), flame retardants (APP, PX-200, DJ 701, 6200), glass fabric (7781), honeycomb core (ACT1-3.2-48), and phenolic resin composites (BAC 400).

4：2-48), and phenolic resin composites (BAC 400). Experimental Procedures and Operational Workflow:

4. Experimental Procedures and Operational Workflow: Epoxy systems were prepared by dissolving components in DMF, impregnating glass fabrics to make prepregs, curing under heat and pressure, and fabricating composite panels and sandwich structures. Tests included gel time measurement, DMA, vertical burning, LOI, flame diffusion, smoke density, toxicity, and peel strength assessments.

5：Data Analysis Methods:

Data were analyzed using standard methods for each test, with results compared to requirements and benchmarks (e.g., UL94 ratings, LOI thresholds). Statistical analysis was not explicitly mentioned, but comparative evaluations were made.