MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999554643 · doi:10.1115/imece2011-64552

Fatigue Behavior of Natural Fiber Reinforced Thermoplastic Composites in Dry and Wet Environments

2011· article· en· W1999554643 on OpenAlexaff
Ahmed Fotouh, John Wolodko

Bibliographic record

VenueVolume 8: Mechanics of Solids, Structures and Fluids; Vibration, Acoustics and Wave Propagation · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicNatural Fiber Reinforced Composites
Canadian institutionsAlberta InnovatesUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaterials scienceComposite materialHigh-density polyethyleneFiberDurabilityComposite numberNatural fiberPolyethyleneStiffness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past decade, there has been an increased demand for products manufactured using sustainable materials. Natural fiber composites are seen as an excellent replacement for synthetic fiber composites due to their low density, good mechanical properties (stiffness), good thermal/acoustic insulation properties and environmental benefits (waste stream utilization and low carbon footprint). While there has been a considerable number of studies examining the short-term behavior of natural fiber composites, very limited work has been done to characterize their long-term durability under cyclic loading. In this study, the fatigue behavior of a natural fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite material was investigated. Cyclic fatigue experiments were conducted on hemp fiber reinforced high density polyethylene (HDPE) at various fiber volume fractions, and under both dry and wet ambient conditions. Using a stress level concept, a generalized model was developed to predict the fatigue life of the various composite formulations tested. The concept of pseudo-plastic flow was incorporated in the fatigue model to form a new model, which is capable of simulating fatigue behavior at different frequencies, fatigue stress ratios and volume fractions.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score0.757

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVolume 8: Mechanics of Solids, Structures and Fluids; Vibration, Acoustics and Wave PropagationSame topicNatural Fiber Reinforced CompositesFrench-language works237,207