Mechanical Properties of Recycled Polypropylene/SBR Rubber Crumbs Blends Reinforced by Birch Wood Flour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this work, recycled polypropylene (PP) and regenerated styrene butadiene rubber (SBR) from used tyres rubber crumbs were combined to produce polymeric blends. The compounds were prepared via twin-screw extrusion to measure their mechanical behaviour for different SBR compositions (0 to 40%). Also, the addition of birch flour (0 to 40%) and coupling agent (0 to 5 phr) content were studied. The results showed that tensile strength and modulus of the blends were substantially improved after incorporation of wood flour. The torsion modulus also increased with birch content. However, the tensile strain at break of PP/birch wood composites decreased with both wood and coupling agent contents, showing a decrease in ductility of the composites. Adding the elastomer phase did not improve the properties. The results showed that adding a coupling agent was found to be effective in improving the wood flour-PP interface, while less improvement was observed for the rubber-PP surface adhesion. The tensile strength of PP/birch composites improved by more than 60%, while the torsion and tensile moduli of the composites improved by only 10% in some cases.
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) | 0.001 | 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".