Effect of Form Factor and Mass Fraction of Alfa Short Fibers on the Mechanical Behavior of an Alfa/Greenpoxy Bio-composite
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This experimental study highlights the effect of the geometric form factor (λ=length/diameter) and the fiber mass fraction on the mechanical behavior of an Alfa/Greenpoxy bio-composite.The Alfa stalks, collected in the Djelfa region in the Algeria highlands, were cut into pieces with length of 7 to 10 cm, washed and dried for two days at 70 ° C. Using a knife mill coupled to three sieves (1.6, 2 or 2.5 mm), three categories of short fibers, according to their form factor λ, were obtained.Depending on the incorporated mass fraction (5, 10, 15 or 20 %) and the three form factors λ of the fibers, twelve types of plates were manufactured by hand molding followed by a curing cycle to accelerate the polymerization, reduce porosity and improve the final surface state.The main mechanical characteristics were determined with tensile, bending and shock tests on ISO 3167-type A samples, obtained by laser cutting.The results revealed that the increase of the form factor and the mass fraction gives rise to a significant improvement of the mechanical properties.We conclude that optimal processing conditions will maximize the mechanical properties of Alfa/Greenpoxy bio-composites.
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".