Evaluation of Tensile Strength and Slurry Erosive Behaviour of Jute Reinforced Natural Rubber Based Flexible Composite
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Polymer based natural fiber reinforced composites are finding their applications in almost all fields of engineering.Flexible composites are different class of composite materials finding their usage in secondary structural application such as sacrificial structures like claddings.Mechanical and tribological characterization of the newly developed composites becomes important prior to using them in any engineering application.The present study concentrates on evaluating the tensile and slurry erosive behaviour of flexible composite manufactured by reinforcing naturally available jute fiber in the form of woven fabric in the naturally available sun dried rubber sheets (NR) using compression moulding technique.ASTM D412 standard is used to evaluate the tensile properties of the proposed flexible composite and the NR sheets.The slurry erosive behaviour is assessed using Ducom slurry erosion testing machine.The results reveal that reinforcing jute with natural rubber enhances the tensile strength compared to natural rubber sheet and the wear of the proposed flexible composite is minimal due to inclusion of natural rubber which is elastic in nature.
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".