Effect of coupling agent content and water absorption on the mechanical properties of coir‐agave fibers reinforced polyethylene hybrid composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, high‐density polyethylene/agave‐coir composites with two fiber contents (20 and 30 wt%) and different coir‐agave fiber ratios (1–0, 0.8–0.2, 0.6–0.4, 0.4–0.6, 0.2–0.8, and 0–1) were produced in a two‐step process using twin‐screw extrusion followed by injection molding. The effect of mixing two different natural fibers and the addition of coupling agent on water absorption, mechanical properties, and morphology is reported. The rule of hybrid mixture was used to predict the properties of the composites, showing a good agreement with the experimental data. The results obtained showed that the combination of different fibers produces composites with unique characteristics as coir fibers absorb less water than agave fibers, while at the same time increase more tensile and flexural strengths. On the other hand, agave fibers were found to improve the impact strength of coir composites. Also, the effect of water absorption on the mechanical properties was studied. Finally, the use of a coupling agent had a positive effect on mechanical properties, while lowering water uptake. POLYM. COMPOS., 37:3015–3024, 2016. © 2015 Society of Plastics Engineers
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".