Mechanical properties and drop-weight impact performance of injection-molded HDPE/birch fiber composites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Natural-fiber-reinforced composites offer various advantages over synthetic composites, including low density, useful mechanical properties and environmental friendliness. In spite of the progress achieved in the field, the mechanical performance of these composite materials has yet to be fully characterized, particularly in terms of impact resistance. In this study, we measured the drop weight impact, Izod impact strength, hardness, tensile strength and elastic modulus of birch-fiber-reinforced HDPE obtained by injection molding. Drop weight impact energy absorbed was constant and independent of fiber content whereas impact strength was inversely proportional to fiber content. Material toughness decreased slightly at 40% fiber. The Shore D hardness of virgin HDPE increased from 50.6 at 0% fiber to 74.6 at 30% fiber. The improvement of the elastic modulus of a composite containing 40% fiber was 27.2% superior to that reported for similar material made by compression molding. The corresponding improvement in tensile strength was superior by 19.7%. Birch-fiber-reinforced HDPE could be an adequate alternative to technical polymers widely used in several industrial sectors.
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".