High strain-rate behavior of natural fiber-reinforced polymer composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The high strain-rate constitutive behavior of polymer composites with various natural fibers is studied. Hemp, hemp/glass hybrid, cellulose, and wheat straw-reinforced polymeric composites have been manufactured, and a split-Hopkinson pressure bar apparatus has been designed to measure the dynamic stress–strain response of the materials. Using the apparatus, compressive stress–strain curves have been obtained that reveal the materials’ constitutive characteristics at strain rates between 600 and 2400 strain/s. Primary findings indicate that natural fibers in thermoset composites dissipate energy at lower levels of stress and higher strain than glass-reinforced composites. In the case of thermoplastic matrices, the effect on energy dissipation of natural fibers vs. conventional talc reinforcements is highly dependent on resin properties. Natural fibers in polypropylene homopolymer show improved reinforcement but have degraded energy dissipation compared to talc. Whereas in polypropylene copolymer, natural fibers result in improved energy dissipation compared to talc. These data are useful for proper design, analysis, and simulation of lightweight biocomposites.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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".