Physical and Mechanical Properties of Polypropylene-Wood-Carbon Fiber Hybrid Composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effects of the addition of short carbon fibers (CFs) on the mechanical, physical, and morphological properties of polypropylene (PP) and woodpolypropylene composites (WPCs) were investigated. Hybrid composites (mix of wood and CFs) were manufactured in a two-stage process, pellet extrusion and samples mold injection with varying amounts of poplar wood fiber (0%, 20%, 30%, and 40%) and CFs (0%, 3%, 6%, and 9%), with and without maleic anhydride grafted PP (MAPP) as a coupling agent. The composites were prepared with extrusion blending followed by injection molding. The samples where then tested for mechanical and physical properties, and fractured surfaces where observed with scanning electron microscopy. The results indicated that the addition of CFs to WPCs improved the tensile and flexural strength and the modulus of elasticity but had only a small influence on elongation at break and impact strength. The density of hybrid composites slightly increased with CFs proportion but their water absorption was not affected. Scanning electron micrographs of the tensile fractured specimens showed improved adhesion of CFs and poplar with the PP matrix in the presence of a coupling agent.
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".